NLRB Production 10

Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:19 AM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme;
Ahearn, Richard L.; Cleeland, Nancy
Boeing draft press release
Boeingrelease.doc
Heres some suggested edits for the press release, which hopefully comport with the complaint, which I havent seen yet.
NLRB-FOIA-00006806
Ex. 5 deliberative strategy
NLRB-FOIA-00006807
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE: Boeing draft press release
Hi Jennifer - If you put the changes in track mode, I can't see them because I'm home on my
Mac right now. I'll be in this afternoon. Could you tell me what you changed? Thanks
________________________________________
From: Abruzzo, Jennifer
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:19 AM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme;
Subject: Boeing draft press release
Heres some suggested edits for the press release, which hopefully comport with the
complaint, which I havent seen yet.
NLRB-FOIA-00006808
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Cleeland, Nancy
Boeingrelease1.doc
I've attached one where I've bolded the changes.
Can you see them in bold?
-----Original Message-----
From: Cleeland, Nancy
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer
Subject: RE: Boeing draft press release
________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00006809
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006810
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Abruzzo, Jennifer
I'm fine with almost all of these but

Exemption 5
________________________________________
To: Cleeland, Nancy
I've attached one where I've bolded the changes.
Can you see them in bold?
________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00006811
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
W ednesday, April 20, 2011 7:47 AM
Cleeland, Nancy
RE: Draft for submission to Advice
Nancy,
Hope the meeting was productive. So, what was the verdict? Could you send me the final press release and news
points? Sorry that I missed the meeting, but I have to catch my van at 4.
Take care,
Jennifer
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 2:20 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Solomon,
Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
Subject: RE: Draft for submission to Advice
Any chance we could meet quickly again at 4 looks like everyone is free then to discuss messaging? Would be great
if Jose could join too.
I need help with one area in particular:
How do we
Ex. 5 - Deliberative
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra
L; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise
Subject: FW: Draft for submission to Advice
Importance: High
Greetings all, Please review my latest revision, which attempts to incorporate comments from Celeste, Jennifer and
Barry. Please see suggested
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00006812
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen;
Sophir, Jayme; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; W agner, Anthony R.
latest news release
boeingreleasefinal.doc
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-00006813
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006814
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:48 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer
FW :
Importance:
High
Draft response to Luttig
From: Person, Robyn
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 10:49 AM
To: Kearney, Barry J.
Subject:
Importance: High
Re:
The Boeing Company
Case 19-CA-32431
Dear Mr. Luttig:
rd
This is in response to your May 3
letter to me concerning the above
captioned case.
Your letter makes certain assertions and arguments concerning
statements in the press about this matter.

with your contentions.
Needless to say, I dont agree
There have been numerous conversations between my
office and Boeing concerning the facts and the law surrounding the
circumstances of this case so that each party is aware of the others
position.
The appropriate forum to test those positions and the relevance
and probative value of your assertions is through the development of an
evidentiary record on which an Administrative Law Judge can make a
decision which can be reviewed by the Board and ultimately the Courts.
Finally, while our earlier efforts to resolve this matter were
unsuccessful, I still remain open to a resolution between the parties.
Sincerely yours,
NLRB-FOIA-00006815
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:57 PM
Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: Meeting re: response to oversight request on Boeing
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 1:51 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: Meeting re: response to oversight request on Boeing
From: Kearney, Barry J.
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Ellen is out. Jayme and I will be there at 1
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 11:58 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Barry, are you available? If so, please bring Ellen and Jayme and others, if you deem it appropriate and they are
available.
From: Mattina, Celeste J.
To: Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Rich and I are available as well.
From: Garza, Jose
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
I am available then if this still works for everyone.
NLRB-FOIA-00006816
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Subject: Meeting re: response to oversight request on Boeing
Is everyone available for a 1:00pm Eastern meeting on the above?
NLRB-FOIA-00006817
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Solomon, Lafe E.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Cc: Solomon, Lafe E.
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
available.

1
NLRB-FOIA-00006818
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00006819
Microsoft Outlook
Solomon, Lafe E.
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Re: Meeting re: response to oversight request on Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Sent: Tue May 10 13:56:50 2011
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
available.

1
NLRB-FOIA-00006820
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00006821
Microsoft Outlook
Mattina, Celeste J.
Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
From: Solomon, Lafe E.
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Subject: Re: Meeting re: response to oversight request on Boeing
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Tue May 10 13:56:50 2011
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
available.
1
NLRB-FOIA-00006822
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00006823
Microsoft Outlook
Solomon, Lafe E.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
--------------------------
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Sent: Tue May 10 15:37:44 2011
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Tue May 10 13:56:50 2011
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00006824
available.
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00006825
Microsoft Outlook
Mattina, Celeste J.
Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Tue May 10 16:01:41 2011
Exemption 5
--------------------------
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Sent: Tue May 10 15:37:44 2011
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Tue May 10 13:56:50 2011
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose

1
NLRB-FOIA-00006826
available.
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00006827
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Schiff, Robert; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
This is what I have so far, feel free to edit..
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006828
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006829
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer;
Schiff, Robert
John Kline and Phil Roe.doc
The attached proposed response incorporates everything we have so far.
From: Contee, Ernestine R.
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 4:56 PM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: RE: This is what I have so far, feel free to edit..
Here it is.
To: Contee, Ernestine R.
Subject: FW: This is what I have so far, feel free to edit..
To: Schiff, Robert; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: This is what I have so far, feel free to edit..
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006830
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006831
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006832
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006833
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006834
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006835
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006836
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Schiff, Robert
Re:
Thanks for putting it together for easier viewing.
A few observations/thoughts:
In the introduction,
Exemption 5
As to response to 3,
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
--------------------------
To: Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Schiff, Robert
Sent: Thu May 12 16:58:50 2011
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006837
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006838
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006839
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Schiff, Robert
FW :
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006840
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006841
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006842
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006843
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006844
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006845
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006846
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006847
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Friday, May 13, 2011 7:52 AM
Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
FW :
Attached is the whole draft response, including Richs 2 cents and Joses response to question 2.
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Schiff, Robert
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006848
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006849
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006850
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006851
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006852
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006853
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006854
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006855
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Friday, May 13, 2011 12:44 PM
Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
FW :
John Kline and Phil Roe 5-13-11.doc
I have made 1 cent edits, for your consideration.
From: Garza, Jose
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:59 AM
Subject: RE:
Attached has Richs 2 cents and my response to question 2 with
Exemption 5
See everyone this afternoon.
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
Subject: FW:
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.
NLRB-FOIA-00006856
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006857
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006858
NLRB-FOIA-00006859
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006860
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006861
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006862
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006863
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006864
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006865
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Farrell, Ellen
Monday, May 16, 2011 12:45 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Sophir, Jayme
RE:
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Division of Advice, NLRB
202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
To: Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW:
See attached for a modification of the second full paragraph on p.3 to include a reference to
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
Subject: FW:
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00006866
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006867
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006868
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006869
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006870
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006871
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006872
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006873
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006874
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006875
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Monday, May 16, 2011 4:27 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Sophir, Jayme
Re:
Do we have the date of our face to face with Machinists?
--------------------------
From: Farrell, Ellen
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Cc: Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Mon May 16 12:44:59 2011
Subject: RE:
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: FW:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
Subject: FW:
NLRB-FOIA-00006876
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006877
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006878
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006879
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Monday, May 16, 2011 4:55 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Sophir, Jayme
RE:
Sylvia will get it.
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 4:27 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Cc: Sophir, Jayme
Subject: Re:
--------------------------
Cc: Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Mon May 16 12:44:59 2011
Subject: RE:
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: FW:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006880
Subject: FW:
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006881
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006882
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006883
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen;
Moskowitz, Eric G.; Sophir, Jayme
Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise; Finch, Peter G.; Harvey, Rachel
Region's Proposed Edits
John Kline and Phil Roe R19 edits to Ellen's version.doc
Attached is the Regions suggested edits/approach.
Exemption 5
In number 1,
Our reasoning re. # 3 and 4 were sent earlier.
Best regards,
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00006884
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006885
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006886
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006887
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006888
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006889
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006890
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006891
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006892
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006893
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
W ednesday, May 18, 2011 7:53 AM
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Jose,
Have you heard anything about the below?
Jen
Issa's committee requested production of all documents and communications referring or relating to the Office
of General Counsel's investigation of Boeing, all documents and records of communications between anyone
in NLRB and IAM, and all documents referring or relating to the Office of General Counsel's investigation of
union election laws in Arizona, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah.
Issa's committee will apparently follow up after documents are produced by conducting a hearing on the Boeing
case. The Greenville News reported May 17 that Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a member of the committee, said
Issa has agreed to conduct a June field hearing in South Carolina on the Boeing complaint.
According to the newspaper account, Gowdy expects to question NLRB officials at the hearing, and promised
to ask them: What were you thinking? Are you trying to intimidate South Carolina? Are you a shill for the
unions? Who put you up to this?
An NLRB spokesperson told BNA May 17 the agency had not been advised of a Government Operations
Committee hearing or asked to participate.
NLRB-FOIA-00006894
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Mattina, Celeste J.
Re:
I'm on my way.
--------------------------
From: Garza, Jose
Cc: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Sent: Wed May 18 08:00:59 2011
Subject: Re:
Yes. Let's talk when I get into the office. I should be in in 20.
To: Garza, Jose
Sent: Wed May 18 07:52:52 2011
Subject:
Jose,
Jen
NLRB-FOIA-00006895
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Farrell, Ellen
Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
FW :
This is my contribution to the work the Region did.
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Moskowitz, Eric G.; Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise; Finch, Peter G.; Harvey, Rachel
Subject: Region's Proposed Edits
Exemption 5
In number 1,
Best regards,
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00006896
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006897
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006898
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006899
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006900
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006901
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006902
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006903
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006904
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Mattina, Celeste J.
Re:
How about coming down in 10 minutes?
--------------------------
From: Garza, Jose
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Cc: Mattina, Celeste J.
Sent: Wed May 18 08:32:42 2011
Subject: Re:
I am here and available at your convenience.
Cc: Mattina, Celeste J.
Sent: Wed May 18 08:02:13 2011
Subject: Re:
I'm on my way.
--------------------------
From: Garza, Jose
Sent: Wed May 18 08:00:59 2011
Subject: Re:
Yes. Let's talk when I get into the office. I should be in in 20.
To: Garza, Jose
Sent: Wed May 18 07:52:52 2011
Subject:
Jose,
Jen
NLRB-FOIA-00006905
NLRB-FOIA-00006906
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
klineandroeresponse.doc
While Ellen was sending her edits, I was about to send mine, so I incorporated hers into this one. My edits primarily deal
with
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006907
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006908
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006909
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006910
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006911
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006912
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006913
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006914
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006915
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006916
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Mattina, Celeste J.
klineandroeresponse2.doc
Heres an edited version per our discussion that may help you with the final. Ill get a copy of the complaint ready.
NLRB-FOIA-00006917
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006918
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006919
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006920
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006921
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006922
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
Abruzzo, Jennifer
FW : Kline and Roe ltr
R-Kline and R-Roe ltr.doc; image001.jpg; image002.gif
Final version. Unless somebody expresses a reservation very soon, I will sign it and
have it delivered to Jose.
From: MotonBostick, Sylvia
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 11:51 AM
Subject: Kline and Roe ltr
NLRB-FOIA-00006923
NLRB-FOIA-00006924
NLRB-FOIA-00006925
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006926
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006927
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006928
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006929
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006930
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Monday, May 23, 2011 8:04 AM
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Ferguson, John H.;
Moskowitz, Eric G.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Issa response
Draft Issa Response.doc
Attached are some edits to the Issa response.
NLRB-FOIA-00006931
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006932
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006933
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006934
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006935
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006936
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006937
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006938
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Monday, May 23, 2011 6:45 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen;
Ferguson, John H.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Simms, Abby; Bandini, Laura E.; Eskenazi, Mark G.
RE: Issa response
Draft Issa Response (6).doc; Draft Issa Response (7).doc
Attached are my edits to the section on state lawsuits that I think were agreed to today. I have made no changes to the
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 8:04 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Ferguson, John H.; Moskowitz, Eric G.; Ahearn,
Richard L.
Subject: Issa response
NLRB-FOIA-00006939
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006940
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006941
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006942
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006943
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006944
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006945
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006946
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006947
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006948
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006949
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006950
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006951
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Tuesday, May 24, 2011 7:43 AM
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ferguson, John H.; Moskowitz,
Eric G.; Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Issa response
Please see some edits in track changes to draft response 7.
Exemption 5
. Im happy to discuss further.
From: Moskowitz, Eric G.
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Ferguson, John H.; Ahearn,
Richard L.
Cc: Simms, Abby; Bandini, Laura E.; Eskenazi, Mark G.
Subject: RE: Issa response
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00006952
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006953
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006954
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006955
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006956
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006957
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006958
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006959
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006960
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006961
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006962
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006963
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006964
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
FW : Issa response
Exemption 5
Well that was easy.
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ferguson, John H.; Moskowitz, Eric G.; Ahearn, Richard
L.
Subject: FW: Issa response
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
Non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.

1
NLRB-FOIA-00006965
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006966
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006967
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006968
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006969
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006970
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006971
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006972
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006973
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006974
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006975
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006976
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006977
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.
FW : Issa response
I just saw Eriks latest draft; my suggestions were not incorporated. If you agree with them, do you want to do so?
Many thanks.
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ferguson, John H.;
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
All of that sounds good to me.
To: Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ferguson, John H.; Moskowitz, Eric
G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
A couple suggestions:
Exemption 5
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ferguson, John H.; Moskowitz, Eric G.; Ahearn,
Richard L.
Please find attached my edits to the latest draft circulated by Jennifer.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006978
Exemption 5
Otherwise, I think
this letter is in pretty good shape.
I am available at the groups convenience.
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
L.
Exemption 5
Im happy to discuss further.
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00006979
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00006980
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Garza, Jose
Abruzzo, Jennifer
. Would it be possible to see the final
draft of the letter by tomorrow? Jen will be in on Friday, in the event that you need
something and she can certainly insure it is mailed out in the afternoon.
Exemption 6
NLRB-FOIA-00006981
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Mattina, Celeste J.
Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE:
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Celeste,
Absolutely. It is all but final now.
Exemption 5
I apologize for my confusion. Once I get that added I will send it over to you.
To: Garza, Jose
Cc: Abruzzo, Jennifer
Subject:
Would it be possible to see the final
Exemption 6
NLRB-FOIA-00006982
Microsoft Outlook
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Garza, Jose; Mattina, Celeste J.
RE:
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Hi Celeste,
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose
Subject:
Exemption 6
NLRB-FOIA-00006983
Microsoft Outlook
Mattina, Celeste J.
Garza, Jose
Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE:
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Hi Celeste,
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose
Subject:
Exemption 6
NLRB-FOIA-00006984
Microsoft Outlook
Mattina, Celeste J.
Thursday, May 26, 2011 5:39 AM
Garza, Jose
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Re:
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
No problem. Anytime in the afternoon is good with me.
--------------------------
From: Garza, Jose
Sent: Wed May 25 18:40:58 2011
Subject: RE:
Ladies, I am so sorry Ive been slow on this.
non-responsive
. I will circulate a draft
tomorrow. Also, could we meet then? I want to run a few things by you. I hope you enjoy your evening.
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Hi Celeste,
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose
Subject:
NLRB-FOIA-00006985
Exemption 6
NLRB-FOIA-00006986
Microsoft Outlook
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose
RE:
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
3pm works best for me. Also, do you have all of the exhibits that we are going to put on a thumbdrive, including those for
the four states?
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: Re:
--------------------------
From: Garza, Jose
Sent: Wed May 25 18:40:58 2011
Subject: RE:
non-responsive
I will circulate a draft
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Hi Celeste,
Exemption 5
1
NLRB-FOIA-00006987
To: Garza, Jose
Subject:
Exemption 6
NLRB-FOIA-00006988
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Re:
Great, 3 works for me too. Yes, Eric emailed them to me.
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu May 26 06:25:31 2011
Subject: RE:
the four states?
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: Re:
--------------------------
From: Garza, Jose
Sent: Wed May 25 18:40:58 2011
Subject: RE:
Non-Responsive
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
1
NLRB-FOIA-00006989
Hi Celeste,
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose
Subject:
Exemption 6
NLRB-FOIA-00006990
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Boeing Issa Response
Draft Issa Response - jpg - 5-25-11.doc
Please find attached a draft of the Boring Issa response that has all of the changes suggested on Tuesday. Are we still
meeting at 3? If so, perhaps we could go through it then.
Let me know. Thanks!
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00006991
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006992
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006993
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006994
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006995
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006996
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006997
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00006998
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
RE: Boeing Issa Response
Yes, we were planning on meeting you then.
From: Garza, Jose
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Subject: Boeing Issa Response
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00006999
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Thursday, June 02, 2011 3:39 PM
Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose
with my edits
Respnse to Issa Hearing Invitaion.doc
Heres my attemptSorry I didnt put the changes in track, it got too confusing.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007000
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007001
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007002
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Cleeland, Nancy; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose
Re: with my edits
It looks very good. I'm on my BB and can't edit doc. Two comments:
Exemption 5
--------------------------
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu Jun 02 15:39:22 2011
Subject: with my edits
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007003
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose
RE: with my edits
Good changes
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 4:30 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose
Subject: Re: with my edits
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Thu Jun 02 15:39:22 2011
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007004
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Garza, Jose; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE: with my edits
Looks great to me.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Subject: RE: with my edits
Thank you, Nancy. Attached please find a few minor suggestions to Nancys edits. I tried to incorporate Jennifers
suggestions into this draft. Celeste and Jennifer,
Exemption 5
do you think theyre
necessary?
Thanks!
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007005
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: with my edits
I think tomorrow afternoon is fine.
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose
Subject: FW: with my edits
It looks good, I made just one small edit. I am copying Lafe, for his review. When
should we send it out, Jose?
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
o you think theyre
necessary?
Thanks!
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007006
Microsoft Outlook
Solomon, Lafe E.
Friday, June 03, 2011 9:36 AM
Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose
RE: with my edits
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I like the letter.
Exemption 5
Thanks, Lafe
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
do you think theyre
necessary?
Thanks!
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007007
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Re: with my edits
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Lafe, thank you for your concern for my safety. I'm
Exemption 6
and will be back in the office
momentarily.
I am available to chat about this at any time convenient for the group.
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose
Sent: Fri Jun 03 09:35:56 2011
I like the letter.
Exemption 5
Thanks, Lafe
From: Garza, Jose

necessary?
Exemption 5
do you think theyre
Thanks!
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007008
NLRB-FOIA-00007009
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Re: with my edits
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I have no opinion on this, except of course wanting jose to be completely safe at all times!
From: Garza, Jose
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Sent: Fri Jun 03 09:39:57 2011
Subject: Re: with my edits
Exemption 6
momentarily.
Sent: Fri Jun 03 09:35:56 2011
I like the letter.
Exemption 5
Thanks, Lafe
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
do you think theyre
necessary?
Thanks!

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007010
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007011
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 9:08 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Draft Invitation Response II
Response II to Hearing Invitation.doc
Please find attached a draft response to the second Issa invitation. I have a meeting from 9:30 to 11 and am leaving for
the Hill at 3:30. I am otherwise available to meet to discuss the draft.
Thank you,
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007012
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007013
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007014
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007015
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Friday, June 10, 2011 12:11 PM
Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.
FW : new draft of June 10 letter
Issa hearing invitation reconsideration.doc; image001.jpg
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 11:46 AM
Subject: new draft of June 10 letter
I will print it out on anniversary letterhead.
NLRB-FOIA-00007016
NLRB-FOIA-00007017
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007018
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007019
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007020
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007021
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
RE: new draft of June 10 letter
image001.jpg
Go have fun!!! THANK YOU, Jose, for everything.
From: Garza, Jose
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 12:22 PM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: Re: new draft of June 10 letter
I had not seen this draft. Thank you.
Exemption 5
I apologize that I am not currently able to devote more time to this.
To: Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.
Sent: Fri Jun 10 12:10:48 2011
Subject: FW: new draft of June 10 letter
NLRB-FOIA-00007022
NLRB-FOIA-00007023
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Mattina, Celeste J.
A few typos to clean up before you send to Leslie.
NLRB-FOIA-00007024
NLRB-FOIA-00007025
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007026
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007027
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007028
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007029
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Monday, June 13, 2011 10:33 AM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Cleeland, Nancy
openingIssa.doc
We would like to meet in
Exemption 5
the GCs office at noon today to get the ball rolling in terms of process, strategy and schedules for the rest of the week.
NLRB-FOIA-00007030
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007031
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007032
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007033
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007034
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.
RE:
Hi Ill be there at noon.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 10:33 AM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Cleeland, Nancy
Subject:
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007035
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.
Re:
I am on my way in.
--------------------------
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.
Sent: Mon Jun 13 11:32:24 2011
Subject: RE:
Hi Ill be there at noon.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Subject:
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007036
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Monday, June 13, 2011 1:31 PM
openingIssa (2).doc
Per our discussion.
NLRB-FOIA-00007037
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007038
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007039
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007040
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007041
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
FW :
openingIssa (2).doc
My suggested edits, clearly still a work in progress
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 1:31 PM
Subject:
Per our discussion.
NLRB-FOIA-00007042
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007043
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007044
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007045
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007046
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007047
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007048
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 9:43 AM
Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Cleeland, Nancy
RE:
openingIssa (2).doc
Attached please find my suggested edits to the document Jennifer sent around after our meeting yesterday. It seems that
we have three great drafts that each point in a slightly different direction. I wonder if it makes sense for us to convene
briefly to decide on a direction before we continue drafting.
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: FW:
Subject:
Per our discussion.
NLRB-FOIA-00007049
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007050
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007051
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007052
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007053
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
W ednesday, June 15, 2011 1:01 PM
Mattina, Celeste J.
Solomon, Lafe E.
Boeing written opening
openingIssa615.doc
Celeste,
Ive attached the draft of the written statement for your editing before we send to the others. Lafe, feel free to chime in.
Thanks,
Jen
NLRB-FOIA-00007054
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007055
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007056
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007057
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007058
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007059
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007060
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007061
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
'lbkiernan@zuckerman.com'
'Schilling, Judith M.'; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.;
Ferguson, John H.
Lafe's written statement for Boeing hearing
openingIssa615.doc
Leslie,
Attorney Client Privilege
Take care,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00007062
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007063
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007064
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007065
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007066
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007067
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007068
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007069
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.; Ferguson, John H.;
Abruzzo, Jennifer
lbkiernan@zuckerman.com
FW : Lafe's written statement for Boeing hearing
openingIssa615.doc
I made a very small change in the beginning.
Exemption 5
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 1:44 PM
To: 'lbkiernan@zuckerman.com'
Cc: 'Schilling, Judith M.'; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Ferguson, John H.
Subject: Lafe's written statement for Boeing hearing
Attorney Client Priv.
Take care,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00007070
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007071
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007072
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007073
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007074
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007075
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007076
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007077
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Abruzzo, Jennifer
openingIssa615.doc
Hi Jennifer, can I please be on the distribution list for these drafts? Thank you.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.; Ferguson, John H.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Cc: lbkiernan@zuckerman.com
Subject: FW: Lafe's written statement for Boeing hearing

deliberative - Exemption 5
Leslie,
Take care,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00007078
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007079
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007080
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007081
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007082
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007083
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007084
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007085
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Cleeland, Nancy
RE: Lafe's written statement for Boeing hearing
Yes. I planned on sending it to you with the oral statement, which I thought you could take a crack at modifying to make it
more lay person friendly.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222

Leslie,
Take care,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00007086
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Cleeland, Nancy; Mattina, Celeste J.
openingIssa615short.doc
Heres a shortened draft version for Lafe to read at the hearing. Nancy, do you have edits to make it more lay person
friendly?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222

Leslie,
Take care,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00007087
NLRB-FOIA-00007088
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007089
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007090
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007091
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007092
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007093
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007094
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Sure -0 When do you need it?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: RE: Lafe's written statement for Boeing hearing
friendly?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007095
Leslie,
Take care,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00007096
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Cleeland, Nancy
I made the same change here. I agree with Jen, the oral version should be lay person
friendly. Nancy, your input would be great. I will try to play with this also later this
afternoon.
friendly?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222

NLRB-FOIA-00007097
Leslie,
Take care,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00007098
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007099
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007100
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007101
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007102
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007103
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007104
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer
We should have it done by tomorrow at noon, if possible.
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
friendly?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007105
Leslie,
Take care,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00007106
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Solomon, Lafe E.
Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Cleeland, Nancy
FW : Comments on W ritten Statement
3306913_2.DOC.doc; image004.gif; image005.gif; image006.gif
Attorney Client Priv. and Ex. 5
. Jen,
can you give it another lookthrough and put it in as final form as possible, with
whatever changes you think are appropriate, pending Nancys suggestion. I would like
to give it one last look when I come in and we should be in good shape to get it out by
no later than noontime.
From: Kiernan, Leslie Berger [mailto:lbkiernan@zuckerman.com]
Cc: Ricci, Jane
Subject: Comments on Written Statement
Attached are my thoughts on the written statement.
NLRB-FOIA-00007107
NLRB-FOIA-00007108
NLRB-FOIA-00007109
NLRB-FOIA-00007110
Attorney Client Priv & Ex. 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007111
NLRB-FOIA-00007112
NLRB-FOIA-00007113
NLRB-FOIA-00007114
NLRB-FOIA-00007115
NLRB-FOIA-00007116
NLRB-FOIA-00007117
NLRB-FOIA-00007118
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Mattina, Celeste J.; Solomon, Lafe E.
Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Re: Comments on W ritten Statement
image004.gif; image005.gif; image006.gif
Ok. I'll have something for review by the time you get to the office tomorrow.
--------------------------
To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc: Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Wed Jun 15 18:31:28 2011
Subject: FW: Comments on Written Statement
. Jen,
Cc: Ricci, Jane
NLRB-FOIA-00007119
NLRB-FOIA-00007120
NLRB-FOIA-00007121
NLRB-FOIA-00007122
NLRB-FOIA-00007123
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Solomon, Lafe E.
Garza, Jose
RE: Comments on W ritten Statement
Hi all
I'm working on this tonight, with the idea of getting my suggestions to you all first thing
in the morning. Thanks, Nancy ________________________________________
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc: Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Comments on Written Statement
--------------------------
________________________________
Sent: Wed Jun 15 18:31:28 2011
Jen, can you give it
another lookthrough and put it in as final form as possible, with whatever changes you think
are appropriate, pending Nancys suggestion.
I would like to give it one last look when I
come in and we should be in good shape to get it out by no later than noontime.
________________________________
Cc: Ricci, Jane
<http://mm1.lettermark.net/zuckerman/card/PHXR_9.map>
[http://mm1.lettermark.net/zuckerman/card/PHXR_9.gif]<http://mm1.lettermark.net/zuckerman/car
d/PHXR_9.map>[cid:image004.gif@01CC2B8A.70BCE2D0]<http://mm1.lettermark.net/zuckerman/card/PH
XR_9.map?110,129><http://mm1.lettermark.net/zuckerman/card/PHXR_9.map>[cid:image005.gif@01CC2
B8A.70BCE2D0]<http://mm1.lettermark.net/zuckerman/card/PHXR_9.map?154,129><http://mm1.letterm
ark.net/zuckerman/card/PHXR_9.map>[cid:image006.gif@01CC2B8A.70BCE2D0]<http://mm1.lettermark.
net/zuckerman/card/PHXR_9.map?206,128><http://mm1.lettermark.net/zuckerman/card/PHXR_9.map>
NLRB-FOIA-00007124
NLRB-FOIA-00007125
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Cleeland, Nancy
Nancy,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Jennifer
--------------------------
----- Original Message -----
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc: Garza, Jose
Sent: Wed Jun 15 18:51:51 2011
Subject: RE: Comments on Written Statement
Hi all
I'm working on this tonight, with the idea of getting my suggestions to you all first thing
in the morning. Thanks, Nancy ________________________________________
Subject: Re: Comments on Written Statement
--------------------------
________________________________
Sent: Wed Jun 15 18:31:28 2011
________________________________

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007126
Cc: Ricci, Jane
NLRB-FOIA-00007127
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
This is great - I have a few minor suggestions for
Exemption 5
(I don't think my Mac will handle the editing functions well so I'll have to get to it in the
morning.) ________________________________________
________________________________
Cc: Ricci, Jane
NLRB-FOIA-00007128
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Thursday, June 16, 2011 7:33 AM
OpeningIssa617draft.doc; OpeningIssa617acceptchgs.doc; image004.gif; image005.gif;
image006.gif
The first attachment is the latest draft version with edits (Leslies in green, Celestes in blue and mine in red). The second
is a final draft with all of those edits accepted.
Jen,
Cc: Ricci, Jane
NLRB-FOIA-00007129
NLRB-FOIA-00007130
NLRB-FOIA-00007131
NLRB-FOIA-00007132
NLRB-FOIA-00007133
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007134
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007135
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007136
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007137
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007138
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007139
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007140
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007141
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007142
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007143
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007144
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007145
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007146
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
Garza, Jose
OpeningIssa617acceptchgs.doc; image004.gif; image005.gif; image006.gif
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Here are my suggested changes for consideration.
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:00 AM
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
My only further suggestion is

Exemption 5
Lafe, once you have read it, let me know if you agree, and I can move it
there.

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007147
. Jen,
Cc: Ricci, Jane
NLRB-FOIA-00007148
NLRB-FOIA-00007149
NLRB-FOIA-00007150
NLRB-FOIA-00007151
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007152
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007153
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007154
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007155
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007156
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007157
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Solomon, Lafe E.
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Final Opening Statement
OpeningIssafinal.doc
Here it is less wordy and under 5 minutes.
NLRB-FOIA-00007158
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007159
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007160
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007161
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007162
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: Final Opening Statement
Is it too late to tweak this?
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Cc: Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Final Opening Statement
NLRB-FOIA-00007163
Microsoft Outlook
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: Final Opening Statement
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Exemption 5
Cc: Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose
Subject: RE: Final Opening Statement
Is it too late to tweak this?
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Cc: Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Final Opening Statement
NLRB-FOIA-00007164
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Draft Response to Continuing Doc Production request
Chairman Issa 2nd Doc Prod Response.doc
Please find attached an updated draft for our discussion tomorrow.
Also I have compiled several documents that have been filed or otherwise publically available for disclosure. They are:
1)
2)
All of the transcripts up to day 8;
the NLRB Order on intervention;
3)
Boeing Resps Oppos to the Acting GCs Pet to Revoke w/o attached exhibits;
4)
Judges Supplemental ruling on Motion to Intervene dated 6-21-11;
5)
Judges ruling on motion to file amicus curiae brief dated 6-13-11;
6)
CPs opposition to Motion to file amicus Curiae Brief dated 6-13-11;
7)
8)
Motion for sixteen AG Amicus Curiae Brief dated 6-13-11;
Motion to Strike Respondents Fourteenth Amendment Defenses 6-21-11;
9)
Motion to Strike Hearsay 6-21-11;
10) Motion to Dismiss and strike Injunctive Relief 6-14-11;
11) ALJs ruling on Motion to Intervene 6-8-2011;
12) AGCs Opposition to Respondents Motion to Dismiss Strike 6-21-2011;
13) Boeings Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss;
14) Boeings Response to HR Policy Associations Motion to File an Amicus Brief
15) Boeings Opposition to the Acting General Counsels Motion to Strike Boeings Fourteenth Affirmative Defense;
Could you please help me identify what I am missing and send me anything else we could include? Thank you for you
help.
Jose
Cc: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: Re: Draft Response to Continuing Doc Production request
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 27, 2011, at 9:51 AM, "Abruzzo, Jennifer" <Jennifer.Abruzzo@nlrb.gov> wrote:
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00007165
From: Garza, Jose
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: Draft Response to Continuing Doc Production request
Please find attached a rough draft of our response to the continuing draft production request. I am also
working to pull together all the docs for disclosure.
I am available to discuss at your convenience.
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007166
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007167
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Re: Draft Response to Continuing Doc Production request
Thx.
--------------------------
To: Garza, Jose
Cc: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Tue Jun 28 07:22:15 2011
Subject: FW: Draft Response to Continuing Doc Production request
I re-worked the letter, which is attached.
Just a heads up -- Rich may not attend our meeting today since he will be traveling to his resident office; however, his trial
team will attend. From a discussion with Rich,

Exemption 5
Also, as a reminder, we should address
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Cc: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: Draft Response to Continuing Doc Production request
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007168
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007169
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Garza, Jose
FW : Draft Response to Continuing Doc Production request
What about this?
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:22 AM
To: Garza, Jose

Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
1) All of the transcripts up to day 8;
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007170
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007171
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007172
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Exemption 5
Thank you for working on this.
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 1:02 PM
To: Garza, Jose
What about this?
To: Garza, Jose

Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007173
6)
7)
8)
9)
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007174
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Solomon, Lafe E.
Garza, Jose
See revised Issa draft letter.
To: Garza, Jose
team will attend.

Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007175
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007176
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007177
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Monday, July 11, 2011 9:05 AM
Abruzzo, Jennifer
FW :
Issa Letter Ross Question.doc; David Issa June 27, 2011 Letter.pdf; Letter to Darrell Issa
dated July 11, 2011.pdf
Ill take a look after you tweak it. Thank you.
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 10:14 AM
To: Garza, Jose
Subject:
Hi Jose,
I am sending you both the word and pdf versions of the July 11 response to David Issas June 27 letter. The pdf file has
the incoming letter from Issa behind the response the word version does not. I have the original and copy to be mailed to
Issa and Ross on Monday.
NLRB-FOIA-00007178
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007179
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007180
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007181
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007182
NLRB-FOIA-00007183
NLRB-FOIA-00007184
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007185
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007186
R oe Statem ent: Subcom m ittee H earing on "C orporate C am paigns and the N L R B : T he Im ... Page 1 of 3
E D U C A T IO N &THE W O R K FO R CE
C O M M IT T E E
C om m ittee Statem ents
C o n ta ct P re ss O ffice (2 0 2 ) 2 2 6 -9 4 4 0
R o e S ta te m e n t: S u b c o m m itte e H e a rin g o n "C o rp o ra te C a m p a ig n s a n d th e N L R B : T h e Im p a c t o f U n io n
P re s s u re o n J o b C re a tio n "
W A SH IN G T O N ,D .C .I M ay 26,2011 -
T o d a y w e w ill e xa m in e th e ro le o f th e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd in co rp o ra te ca m p a ig n s I re a lize th is is a g e n e ra l d e fin itio n o f th e te rm , b u t a
co rp o ra te ca m p a ig n is a u n io n e ffo rt to d isru p t a n e m p lo ye r's ro u tin e b u sin e ss T h e ca m p a ig n ca n ta ke th e fo rm o f n e g a tive a d ve rtisin g , co m p la in ts file d
a g a in st e m p lo ye rs w ith va rio u s g o ve rn m e n t a g e n cie s, a n d ca n e ve n in clu d e a p p e a ls to p o litica l a n d re lig io u s le a d e rs to p u t p re ssu re o n a ta rg e te d
e m p lo ye r
T h e in te n t o f th e se ta ctics is to u n d e rm in e th e re p u ta tio n a s w e ll a s b re a k th e w ill o f a n e m p lo ye r w h o re fu se s to a cce p t u n io n d e m a n d s In so m e ca se s,
a n e m p lo ye r ca n e ith e r co n ce d e to d e m a n d s th a t m a y u n d e rm in e th e su cce ss o f h is o r h e r b u sin e ss, o r a cce p t p u b lic co n te m p t, g o ve rn m e n t p e n a ltie s,
o u tsid e in te rfe re n ce , a n d e xtra o rd in a ry litig a tio n co sts R e g a rd le ss o f th e p o te n tia l o u tco m e s, th e se ca m p a ig n s ca n h a ve a d e trim e n ta l im p a ct o n a
b u sin e ss'b o tto m lin e a n d th re a te n th e live lih o o d o f its w o rke rs
O ve r th e ye a rs th e u se o f co rp o ra te ca m p a ig n s h a s a cce le ra te d A cco rd in g to o n e stu d y, b e tw e e n 1 9 7 4 a n d 1 9 9 9 , o n ly 2 0 0 co rp o ra te ca m p a ig n s w e re
id e n tifie d Y e t in 2 0 0 5 it w a s e stim a te d th a t b e tw e e n 1 5 a n d 2 0 co rp o ra te ca m p a ig n s w e re u n d e rw a y a t a n y g ive n tim e A n d re ce n tly th e N a tio n a l L a b o r
R e la tio n s B o a rd h a s ta ke n a n u m b e r o f ste p s to e xp a n d th e a rse n a l o f ta ctics a va ila b le fo r a co rp o ra te ca m p a ig n
T h e b o a rd h a s re m o ve d b a n n e n n g re strictio n s p re vio u sly p la ce d o n b o yco tts o f n e u tra l e m p lo ye rs E m p lo ye e s o f o n site co n tra cto rs h a ve b e e n g ra n te d
g re a te r a cce ss to th e p ro p e rty o f th e co n tra ctin g e m p lo ye r co n n e cte d to o rg a n izin g a ctivity T h e b o a rd h a s a lso re q u e ste d b rie fs th a t co u ld a llo w e ve n
g re a te r a cce ss to a n e m p lo ye r's p ro p e rty
In o n e ca se , th e b o a rd m o ve d to u p h o ld a n e le ctio n ta in te d b y in tim id a tio n o f w o rke rs b e ca u se th e in tim id a tio n o rig in a te d w ith "n o n p a rtie s" to th e
e le ctio n A cco rd in g to th e B o a rd 's lo g ic, th e o u tco m e o f a n e le ctio n ca n b e o ve rtu rn e d o n ly w h e n th e th re a ts b y n o n p a rtie s a re "so a g g ra va te d a s to
cre a te a g e n e ra l a tm o sp h e re o f fe a r a n d re p risa l re n d e rin g a fre e e le ctio n im p o ssib le " W h o w ill d e te rm in e w h e n a "g e n e ra l a tm o sp h e re o f fe a r a n d
re p risa l" e xists? T h e w o rke r w h o re ce ive s a n a n o n ym o u s ca ll a t th e ir h o m e a n d h e a rs a vo ice p ro m isin g to "g e t e ve n " if th e w o rke r o p p o se s u n io n
re p re se n ta tio n ? O r a fe d e ra l b u re a u cra t?
A ctio n s ta ke n b y th e fe d e ra l g o ve rn m e n t ca n se n d sh o ckw a ve s a cro ss th e co u n try. A t a tim e w h e n o u r e co n o m y is stru g g lin g to g e t b a ck o n its fe e t a n d
m illio n s o f A m e rica n s a re d e sp e ra te fo r jo b s, e m p lo ye rs a n d w o rke rs a re p a yin g clo se a tte n tio n to th e a ctio n s ta ke n b y le a d e rs h e re in W a sh in g to n
P o licym a ke rs in th e n a tio n 's ca p ita l m u st u n d e rsta n d th a t e ve n th e m o st m o d e st a ctio n ca n h a ve a d ra m a tic e ffe ct o n o u r e co n o m y
T h e a ctio n ta ke n b y th e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd a g a in st T h e B o e in g C o m p a n y is a g o o d e xa m p le W h ile th e fa cts a re still in d isp u te , th e o u tco m e
o f th e ca se m a y sig n ifica n tly a lte r th e m a n n e r in w h ich e m p lo ye rs in ve st in o u r e co n o m y a n d o u r w o rkfo rce I re co g n ize th e ca se is in th e e a rly sta g e s o f
w h a t w ill b e co stly litig a tio n B u t I w o n d e r if a n yo n e se rio u sly d o u b ts th e tre m e n d o u s im p lica tio n s th is ca se p o se s to o u r w o rkfo rce , a n d co u ld p o ssib ly
d e n y C o n g re ss're sp o n sib ility to co n sid e r th o se im p lica tio n s, a sk q u e stio n s, a n d d e te rm in e w h a t is in th e b e st in te re st o f o u r w o rke rs a n d th e ir fa m ilie s
A lth o u g h th is is lu st o n e o f m a n y ca se s p re se n te d to th e N L R B , w e m u st re m e m b e r th e b o a rd d o e s n o t o p e ra te in a va cu u m It is a n a rm o f th e fe d e ra l
g o ve rn m e n t, a n d its d e cisio n s g o ve rn virtu a lly e ve ry p riva te w o rkp la ce in th e n a tio n T h a t is tre m e n d o u s p o w e r th a t co m e s w ith a g re a t re sp o n sib ility to
a ct o n b e h a lf o f th e p u b lic g o o d I a m co n ce rn e d th e b o a rd h a s je ttiso n e d th is re sp o n sib ility o ve r th e la st tw o ye a rs in fa vo r o f a n a ctivist a g e n d a
d e sig n e d to a d va n ce th e ca u se o f B ig L a b o r o ve r th e rig h ts o f e ve ry d a y w o rke rs
T h e co m m itte e h a s p le d g e d to m a ke jo b cre a tio n a n d A m e rica n co m p e titive n e ss its le a d in g p rio ritie s W e h a ve a jo b to d o a n d th a t in clu d e s o ve rse e in g
th e va rio u s b o a rd s, a g e n cie s, a n d d e p a rtm e n ts w ith in o u r ju risd ictio n to e n su re th e y d o n o t u n d e rm in e th e stre n g th o f o u r w o rkfo rce T o d a y's h e a rin g is
a n im p o rta n t p a rt o f th a t e ffo rt
http://edw orkforce.house.gov/N ew s/D ocum entSingle.aspx?D ocum entID =243209
6/14/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00007187
Page 1 of1
null
til-
A TION W EEK
zt;i0
C lick to Print
By M ichaelM echam
T he first steelcolum n for Boeing's C harleston,S.C .,787 finalas
line has been erected on a construction site next door to w here th.
com pany m akes and assem bles com posite fuselage sections for t1
jet.
T he 1.2 m illion-sq.-ft.building is expected to open in July 2011.
production aircraft is to rollout in the first quarter 2012.Boeing :
90% of the plant's contract dollars are going to South C arolina
com panies.
Boeing also plans to refurbish parts of its E verett,W ash.,w idebody aircraft factory to include a surge lin.
provide supplem entalassem bly capacity for the 787 program .W hen the South C arolina factory com es or
w illgive Boeing the capacity to operate three finalassem bly lines,if necessary.
Four of six 787 test aircraft are now flying,and the program is scheduled to achieve FA A certification an
its first delivery late this year.
Boeing elected to build its second assem bly line outside of the Seattle area because of repeated strikes by
m achinists,including one in 2008 that the com pany says cost it $4.3 billion.T he South C arolina plant,w
w orkers voted the m achinists union out last year,w illhelp ensure that it suffers "no disruptions" in
m anufacturing,Boeing says.
T he com pany originally established its presence in South C arolina indirectly five years ago,w hen V ough
A ircraftand A lenia A eronautica builtfactories adjacentto the city's airportin N orth C harleston to supply
and center fuselage sections.
But Boeing ended up buying both factories to relieve the suppliers of financialpressures they felt as the
schedule slipped by m ore than tw o years.
Boeing uses a fleet of m odified 747 transports to haulw ing and fuselage sections to its finalassem bly lin
W hen its C harleston operation begins,som e fuselage sections w illsim ply be rolled next door to feed its
assem bly line,w hile others w illbe flow n to E verett to feed the originalline.
Tic
G M W -Ifin
C opyright 7 2010 A viation W eek,a division of T he M cG raw -H ill C om panies.
A ll righ ts reserved . T em p t V ie IP rilfacy.R olicy
L a s . it--
P IA 1
11111A
A /1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
NLRB-FOIA-00007188
B loom b erg
6 r
5'7
G O V E R N M E N T
T h u rsd a y Ju n o lb 2 0 1 1
&
W E L C O M E .
K e lle n
tITA T.eim int
B o ein g C ase Jets O b am a L aw yer to G o o g led V illain
F ro m O b scu rity
Sie;>11311
, ff
fic r , lv s t, R
O , 1-1
M Y H O M E
A w n s
SEA R C H ES
H EPO ITTS
C U PB O A R D
w aA rs H E W
1- 1 0 ,
'2 5 M t," S t
(B io o m b erg )- A p p ean n g u n d er th reat o f a su b p o en a Isn t th e o n ly reaso n
L ate S o lo m o n m ar b e u n o o m fo rtab le w h en U S raw m ak ers q u estio n u n fair
lab o r ch arg es h e th o u g h t ag ain st B o ein g C o to m o rro w
T h e u p ro ar ev e cases h en M ed sin ce P r esfilen t B ataci C b am a n am eo h im
acting general counsel of the N allonal L abor R elations B oard a year ago w as a snock after 39 years of relatry e
anonym ity as a C areer em ployee w ith the federa , ag en th S o lo m o n said
l'y e g o n e to m o re o r tw o G o o g le cag es to ru rd red s S o lo m o n 0 1 said in an In ten iew w ith B lo o m b erg
S o v em m en t -N o tin g rearly p rep ared m e fo r th e n o n leg at p an s o f th is jo t I n ey er co u ld h aw s im ag in ed an , o f tru s
ever
S o lo m o n h as b eco m e a p u b lic en em a to b u sin ess g ro u p s an d th eir R ep u b lican allies esp en aily after h is A p ra 2 0
co m p lain t say in g R o e n o M u ll a n o m m en assem b l , p a n t tflits n ew 7 s 7 threaratner in S outh C arolina in retaliation
fo r w o n t sto p p ag es b y u n io n s at 1 1 5 S eattle-area p ro d u ctio n h u b B o ein g th e w o rld 's larg est aero sp ace co m p an y h as
d en ied su ch m o th es
T h e H o u se O v ersig h t an d G o v ern m en t R efo rm C o m m ittee h ead ed b y R ep u b h can R ep resen tab y e D arrell lssa o f
C alifo rn ia is H o ld in g to m o rro w s sessio n in N o rth C th an esto n site sto re p lan t T h e h earin g s rite in d icates th e
reception S olom on m ay receive -U nkoncallon T hrough R egulation T he N L R B s H olding P attern on F ree E nterprise '
L A FE SO L O M O N
B10130X
Astog G eoe9: C ounza ,
N abooin LaD 'O ,R V akons
B oard
B o n s
S ep t 4 1 9 4 9 in H elen a
Ancansas
F am ily
W ife C am and cluldren
C atherine, 25 and P 1111, 25
E ducatfork
B A
E conom ics, B row n
U niversity, 1970
,J S T u la n e 'in h e re d ,
is7e
P rev io u s P o sth o rn
v. 1972 B ecom es N L R B
held exam tnei
v 197,4 B ecom es attorney
in M e N L R B O ffice of
A ppeals after break for law
sch o o l
k 1 9 8 1 Jo in s b o ard staff,
w orking successively for 10
b o ard m em b ers
'In ten tio n to S u b p o en a'
'T h e co m m ittee h as m ad e it clear th at q is th eir in ten tro n to su b p o en a flea Id a n o t v o lu n tan h ap p ear 'S o lo m o n
w ro te in a Ju n e 1 0 led er to rssa S o lo m o n said h e w o u ld sh o w u p ev en th o u g h h e w as co n cern ed ab o u t law m ak ers
Q u estio n in g 'an A w e: acin g In its q u asi ju ctrn al cap acity ab o u t Its S essio n s in a p en d in g case '
C htics S ac S olom on ts patio( a pin-onion tat by the N L R B w hich investigates unfair-labor charges toy unions against
m an ag em en t sin ce O b am a s ap p o in tees g ain ed a m ajo rity o n Its D m -m em b er b o tar3
S o lo m o n m ai b e The keito im posing big labors entire agenda,'the N atio nal R igh t to W ork C om m ittee a group
based in S pur glleal 0101roa that opposes req.,w ing w orkers to Join unions said in a F ebruary statem ent
S o lo m o n A lio h as w o rk ed as an N L R B alto m ey u n d er so n p res d en ts at b o th p arb es said h e h as n o u se to g rin d an d
w as ju st d o in g h s Ica to en fo rce fair-lab o r law s w h en 'h e N ed th e B o ein g co m p lain t m u ch iso ad m in istratry e
h ean n g s th at b eg an 'h is A eek in S cath e
'C am e to lie'
It ten t th at I h ad so m e ag en d a to g c g et th is case'S o k o l-non said in a M ay E interne -T h is case cam e to m e co o l
d ecid ed o n th e lad s an d th e law '
S olom on's office atthe N L R B is decorated w ith w hile orchids he grow s in his off hours T here solos a yellow lava
lam p an d a p o ster w ith im ag es o f H elen a A rk an sas h s h o m eto w n
S olom on w ent to w ork for ihe N L R B in 19 0 2 as a field irreestig ato r H e m et h is in is o f 3 2 y ears C am w th en sh e
w orked at the agency H e left the N L R B just long enough to get his law degree at T ulane tinlversIty In N ew O rleans
an d retu rn ed as 3 staff ato m s,
E .-en critics say S o lo m o n h as a d ry n o t an d a sh arp leg al m in d n in fo n d o f L ate 'P aler S th au m b er a fo rm er N L R B
C eara ch airm an ap p -to ted lav P resid en t G eo rg e k 4 B ath , said lean in tem ew lie th in k s o u tsid e th e b o o '
O rsag ree o n A ctio n s
-- -- -
l e
- - - S c h a u m b e r a la b o r c o n su lta n t fo r c lie n ts
44 e M ot s nn tre if-titia n :Is

su ch as b u sin ess g ro u p s at S ch au rn b er
esseritik i a 'n am e to n to iet
C onsulting L L C in W ashington said he
C M S 8 , a 'T -E . u p ..il
d isag rees w it S o lo m o n s ad io n s as
acb n g g en eral co u n sel an d to ld to m so
recently
M eet D C 's P o w er P lay ers n
so m e w o rk ," S ch au m b er said in an in terw ew
'H e ju st said , T h at sin e - W e g o tten k o u
S o lo m o n h as said n e teed to reach a settlem en t w ith B o ein g fo r sa m o n th s P eto re issu in g th e co m p lain t ag ain st th e
com pany
F ie w an ts B o ein g to ad o tree 7 97$ a 010051, the num ber planned in S outh C arobna to its output in W asningion state
T h at w o u ld S ee B o ein g to u se th e so u th ern tarifa, as lo n g as It m a -eases p ro d u ctio n w rath th e co m p an y h as
d iscu ssed d o in g
T h e N L R B co m p lain t m aq u o ted o r rrn sth aram erro eS statem en ts b y B o ein g m acu la., acco rd in g tu e M ay letter b y
co m p an y law y er J M ich ael L u ttig N o B o ein g w o rk ers In W ash in g to n state lo st ro b s C r h ad tea w ag es red u ces,
acco rd in g to T im N eale a sp o k esm an fo r th e C h icag o -b ased co m p an y
'T h e co m p lain t h as tam ed k u n d ay m en tal issu es an d T h e actio n itself is m ath u n p reced en ted N eale S aid in an
In tern e.
S ecret B eg at. F aceb o o k
B u sin ess g ro u p s h av e en tro zed o th er step s tak en n o S o lo m o n H e th reaten ed in Jan u ar, to su e fo u r states o k er
co n stitu tio n al am en d m en ts th at g u aran tee w o rk ers a secret p allo r in u n io n elecb o n s an d m ien ,federal rules allow ing
em p lo y ers to accect In o n sig n -u p card s filled o u t S r a m ajo n te o f w o rk ers S o lo m o n su ffice filed a co m p lain t ag ain st
llrizona on M ak
H e also b ack ed a C ase ag ain st A m en can M ed ical R esp o n se a C o n n ecticu t am b u lan ce co m p an y , fo r flin g , w o rt er
w ho disparage:. her D oss or F acebook T he case led tc a settlem ent in F ebruary in *to C O the com pany agreed to
th an g e is rites to r em p lo y ee d iscu ssio n s aw ay fro m w o rk acco rd in g to th e N L R B
,2 3 0 1 B eco m es d n ecto r o f
O ffice S i R epresentation
A ppeals
x Ju n e 2 0 1 0 B eco m es
actin g g en eral co u n sel
W hy H e M atters.
4 s ailin g g en eral co u n sel
for tne N L R B . S olom on has
tat en & d u n s ag ain st
B oeing and other
co m p an ies th at
R eb u t:n u n s crito ze as
favonng labor unions
H ow H e Gat H ere:
In Ju n e 2 0 1 0 P resid en t
S m ack O b am a n o m in ated
S o lo m o n lo b e g en eral
co u n sel an d m ad e h im
ad m g g en eral co u n sel
p en d in g S en ate actio n
Q uote A bout
+ le h as a d eep k n o w led g e
of the lean/ and great care
and capacity to M ink 'said
M arsh all B ab so n a p artn er
at S eitarth S haw L L I, in
N ew Y ork and a form er
m em ber of the board'H e s
h an d lin g th is as w ell as can
b e ex p ed ed N o one likes to
be accused of things you
K now in your heart kou
h ak en t d o n e '
Be M rs O w n W ords
O n controversy oyer N L R B
co m p lain ts h e h as filed
II really g o es p an an d
parcel In the job in a
polincal tim e in a political
year 1 ty not to take a
p erso n ally A ttie sam e
tim e, I m ake m y decisions
devoid S i the politics Ann
V e g o es o n '
O n the fate of his
nom ination as N L R B
g en era/ co u n sel
-A s a 30-year em plom e,
w hether I m confirm ed or
O ct a rthesnt affect
ary th n o I can tete M y
fath er s 9 5 h e s still
practicing law I can go to
an o th er career It b eso t
b e te ! m e '
S olom on s future a , are N L R B is u n cerain tittle R ep cb lican s h ay e in d icated th ey in t!'b lo ck h is ro rn in ab o n as
g en eral co u n ser H e can k eep M e jo b o n an actin g ro asts u n lit so m eo n e is In th e p o s'N an cy C ieeran d an ag en cy
sp o k esw o m an satim an e-m ail H e 3 1 5 0 C S U 1 0 tetu m to n s p ren o u s jo b as d irecto r elth e N L R B s O ffice o f
R ep resen tatio n ru m ea s
S o lo m o n said h e ex cects it m il all w o rk o u t in M e em , as h e assu red h is p aren ts w h o are in th eir 9 0 5 in A rk an sas
w as g ettin g so m an . ey m a Is fro m m y ram m em b ers tellin g m e th at th ey aere b eh in d m e th at laid :ate N em an d
say I h aeen t co m m ated m u rd er I ap p reciate y o u r su p p o l T h is is O K '
lu co n tad th e rep o lm s o n th is sto ry S tep t an te firm o u r tn W ash in g to n at scar th t -crt T o rtro s g 'et H cla
R osenkrant n W ashington at h ,S e11.01011013.1011befg bet
T o contact the editor iespons ble 'or this story L arry L teben soil
NLRB-FOIA-00007189
C A T S A ssign m en t S h eet -- C h arge A gain st E m p loyer
A ssign to:
C ategory:
10(J)Potential:
D ia rtiiN t4 'To
A
s
N o :
U SPS InfoN V eIngarten H andout:
(3 )
See Purple Sheet:
B ackpay Insert:
8(a)(1)
R D S
H U TD O W N O R R E LO C A TE
O NTR A C T U NIT W O R K
S U S P E NS IO N
U NIO N S E C U R ITY R E LA TE D A C TIO NS
W A G E S A LTE R E D
G E S IN C O ND ITIO NS O F E M P LO Y M E NT [NO T 8(a)(3)]
C O E R C IV E S TA TE M E N TS , IN C LU D IN G TH R E A TS
E NIA L O F A C C E S S (L E C H M E R E )
D IS C H A R G E O F S U P E R V IS O R (p A g g g a-R o s
D IS P A R A G E M E NT O F U NIO N/E M P LO Y E E
H A R A sstraw r
INTER FER ENC E (W E N G A M E N )
8(a)(4)
IN TE R R O G A TIO N
B E NE FITS A LTE R E D
D IS C H A R G E
D IS C H A R G E ,C O NS TR U C TIV E
D IS C IP LINE
INH E R E NTLY D E S TR U C TIV E C O ND U C T
L A w surrs
O TH E R A LLE G A TIO N S
P O LLIN G E M P LO Y E E S
P R O M IS E O F B E N E FITS
R U L E S : N O -S O L IC IT A T IO N /N O -D IS T R IB U T IO N R U L E S
R U LE S :O TH E R E M P LO Y E R R U LE S
S T A T E M E N T S O F F U T IU T Y
S U R V E ILLA N C E
V IO LE N C E
L A w surr
LA Y O FF
L ociou r
O N E R O U S A S S IG N M E N T S M O N D iT IO N S
P R O M O T IO N S W IT H H E L D
R E F U S A L T O C O N S ID E R /H IR E A P P L IC A N T (N O T S A L T IN G )
R E F U S A L T O C O N S ID E R /H IR E A P P L IC A N T (S A L T IN G )
R E FU S A L TO R E IN S TA T E E M P LO Y E E /S TR IK E R (E .G ., L A ID L 4W )
R EW A R D S
S H U TD O W N O R R E LO C A TE
S U B C O N T R A C T U N IT W O R K
S U S P E N S IO N
U N IO N S E C U R IT Y R E L A T E D A C T IO N S
W A G E S A LTE R E D
S (a ) D IS C R IM IN A T IO N
C O NC E R TE D : B E NE FITS A LTE R E D
C O NC E R TE D : D IS C H A R G E
C O NC E R TE D : D IS C IP LINE
C O NC E R TE D : LA Y O FF
C O NC E R TE D : LO C K O U T
C O NC E R TE D : O NE R O U S A S S IG NM E NT/C O ND M O NS
C O NC E R TE D : O TH E R A LLE G A TIO NS
C O NC E R TE D : P R O M O TIO NS W ITH H E LD
C O NC E R TE D : R E FU S A L TO C O NS ID E R /H IR E
C O NC E R TE D : R E FU S A L TO R E INS TA TE
C O NC E R TE D : R E W A R D S
C O NC E R TE D : S H U TD O W N O R R E LO C A TE
C O NC E R TE D : S U S P E NS IO N
C O NC E R TE D : U NIO N S E C U R ITY R E LA TE D
C O NC E R TE D : W A G E S A LTE R E D
A LTE R E G O O R D IS G U IS E D C O NTINU A NC E
B 5LE A ITH B A R G A INING (INITIA L C O NTR A C T)
A D FA ITH B A R G A INING (S U C C E E D ING C O NTR A C T),
C T D E A LING /B Y P A S S ING U NIO N
FA ILU R E TO S IG N A G R E E M E NT.
IM P LE M E NT D R U G TE S TING
IM P L E M E N T A T IO N (Q Q L C M 122=
IM P LE M E NTA TIO N (IM P A S S E IS S U E )
O TH E R A LLE G A TIO NS
R E FU S A L TO B A R G A IN (INITIA L C O NTR A C T)
R EFU SA L TO B A R G A IN (S U C C E E D ING O R M ID C O NTR A C T)
R E FU S A L TO FU R NIS H INFO R M A TiO N
R E FU S A L TO H IR E M A JO R ITY
R E FU S A L TO R E C O G NIZE (G IS S E L )
R EFU SA L TO R EC O G NIZE (NO T G /S S E L)
R E P uD iA TIoN /M ootm cA TIoN O F C O N TR A C T [S E C . 8(d)]
S H U TD O W N O R R E LO C A TE (E .G ., FIR S T N A TIO N A L M A IN T.)
S U B C O NTR A C T U NIT W O R K
TE S T O F C E R TIFIC A TIO N
U NILA TE R A L C H A NG E S (NO T S E C .8(d))
W ITH D R A W A L O F R E C O G NITIO N
8(a)(2):
A S S IS TA N C E
C R E A T IO N O F IN -H O U S E O R G A N IZ A T IO N (E L E C IR O M A T IO N )
D O M IN A TIO N
IN TE R FE R E N C E
U N LA W FU L R E C O G N ITIO N
8(1)(3):
B E N E FITS A LTE R E D
D IS C H A R G E
D IS C H A R G E , C O N S T R U C T IV E
D IS C IP LIN E
IN H E R E N T L Y D E S T R U C T IV E C O N D U C T
IN V E S TIG A TO R Y M E E TIN G S (W E IN G A R T E N )
LA W S U IT
LA Y O FF
LO C K O U T
O N E R O U S A S S IG N M E N T S /C O N D IT IO N S
P R O M O T IO N S W IT H H E L D
R E F U S A L T O C O N S ID E R /H IR E A P P U C A N T (N O T S A L T IN G )
R E F U S A L T O C O N S ID E R /H IR E A P P L IC A N T (S A L T IN G )
R E F U S A L T O R E IN S T A T E E M P L O Y E E /S T R IK E R (E .G . 1"4/D LA W )
Yes:
. . .
1/
1JV C -
vt4.4vA 04-
IO C *
4
I
1- C o u t.1
p O n :t
H A R 19C O M 1D o d ceftD o cket F o rm s \C A T S A ssen t S h eet - C h arg e A g ain st E rn

.m plOoyer.
yer r.doc
do c
IL : 6 /2 6 /2 0 0 8
NLRB-FOIA-00007190
Fro m :
To:
S u b je c t:
D a te :
Nerve)",R achel
"w kilbera(ri"gibsondunn corn"
T he B oeing C om pany, C ase 19-C A -32431
T hursday, M ay 19, 2011 1:43:00 P M
D ear M r. K i!berg:
I a m a F ie ld A tto rn e y w ith th e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd , a n d I a m w o rkin g w ith M a ra -L o u ise
A n za lo n e a n d P e te r F in ch o n th is m a tte r. I a m w ritin g to a sk yo u , p u rsu a n t to Ju d g e A n d e rso n 's
re q u e st m a d e in M o n d a y's co n fe re n ce ca ll, to p ro vid e m e w ith th e n a m e s, co n ta ct in fo rm a tio n , a n d
n o tice s o f a p p e a ra n ce fo r e a ch a tto rn e y w h o sh o u ld b e se rve d w ith d o cu m e n ts in th is ca se .
D o cu m e n ts ca n b e se n t to yo u o n ly, o r th e y ca n a lso b e se n t to o th e r a tto rn e ys fo r th e R e sp o n d e n t
w h ich e ve r yo u p re fe r. W e ju st n e e d to e n su re th a t w e h a ve co m p le te a n d a ccu ra te in fo rm a tio n . T h a n k
yo u fo r yo u r a n ticip a te d co o p e ra tio n a n d yo u r p ro m p t a tte n tio n to th is m a tte r. P le a se fe e l fre e to
co n ta ct m e if yo u h a ve a n y q u e stio n s.
S incerely,
R ache l H a rvey, F ie ld A ttorney
N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd , S u b re g io n 3 6 , R e g io n 1 9
6 0 1 S o u th w e st S e co n d A ve n u e - S u ite 1 9 1 0
P o rtla n d , O R 9 7 2 0 4 -3 1 7 0
(503 ) 326 -3 271 I D ire ct
(503 ) 326-30 85 I M ain
(5 0 3 ) 3 2 6 -5 3 8 7 I F a x
rachel.harveyanlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-00007191
Labor A gency C hallenges B oeing Factory Location : N PR
Page 1 of 2
L ab or A gen cy C h allen ges B oein g F actory L ocation
by W E N D Y K A U F M A N
Ju n e 14, 2011
te xt size A
A A
The N ational Labor R elations B oard has accused
B oeing of retaliating against its union w orkers by
setting up a new nonunion factory in S outh
C arolina. The N LR B says in doing so, B oeing
broke federal labor law .
The com plaint has outraged som e m em bers of
C ongress, w ho have reacted by trying to cut
funding for the N LR B .
The case has been a hot political topic for w eeks,
but on Tuesday the action m oves into a S eattle
o f a N a tio n a l L a bo r R e la tio n s B o a rd d isp u te
courtroom . The N LR B is bringing the com plaint
before one of its ow n adm inistrative law judges.
A ny appeals could eventually get to the federalcourts.
E nlarge
B ruce S m ith/A P
B o e in g 's n e w p la n t in N o rth C h a rle sto n , S .C .. Is a t th e ce n te r
A s B oeing and its political and corporate allies see it, the N LR B has overstepped its authority. "O ur
decision to build in C harleston is essentially being second-guessed by the N LR B ," says B oeing
spokesm an Tim N eale. "It really does get dow n to fundam ental rights about w hether a com pany that
has a unionized w orkforce can expand to a right-to-w ork state or not. That's the issue here."
In right-to-w ork states such as S outh C arolina,em ployees are not required to join unions,even if
w orkers at that com pany have approved one, and unions in those states are usually very w eak.
Tom W roblew ski, president of the S eattle-area m achinists union, says this case isn't about w here
B oeing builds its factories."This is allabout breaking the law ," he says.
S ince the 1930s, w orkers have had the right under federal law to join unions, engage in collective
bargaining and go on strike.The law says em ployers cannot discrim inate against union w orkers, and
can't retaliate against them for striking.
The N LR B says B oeing did those things w hen it chose S outh C arolina over W ashington state for its
second 787 production line.
In 2005 and again in 2008, B oeing m achinists w ent on strike. S enior com pany executives like Jim
A lbaugh, w ho heads B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes,cited those strikes and w hat they called "the need
for production stability" as a m ajor factor in deciding to locate its new factory in a nonunion stronghold.
H ere's w hat A lbaugh told the S eattle T im es about that decision: "B ut again,the overriding factor w as
not the business clim ate, and it w as not the w ages w e're paying people today. It w as that w e can't
afford to have a w ork stoppage every three years."
http://w w w .npr.org/2011/06/14/137141619/1abor-agency-challenges-boeing-factory-locati.. . 6/15/2011

NLRB-FOIA-00007192
Labor A gency C hallenges B oeing Factory Location :N PR
Page 2 of 2
To the N LR B 's top law yer,Late S olom on,that com m ent sounded like B oeing w as retaliating against its
w orkers for striking.S olom on tried to get B oeing and its m achinists union to resolve their dispute,but
w hen the effort failed,S olom on says,"Ifelt Ihad no choice but to issue the com plaint.Itook an oath of
office to uphold the N ationalLabor R elations A ct,and that's w hat I'm doing to the best of m y ability."
B eyond the com plaint itself,the rem edy being proposed has enraged B oeing and its friends.A lthough
the the new plant the size of 10 footballfields has already opened and hundreds of w orkers have
been hired,the N LR B w ants B oeing to m ove those production jobs back to unionized w orkers in
W ashington state.
Jam es G regory,a labor scholar at the U niversity of W ashington,says he w as surprised the N LR B w ent
after B oeing.
"It is a brand new expression of the N LR B 's w illingness to once again really try to enforce the law ,and
w e just haven't seen this in a long tim e," G regory says.
The agency's new stance has prom pted B oeing and its supporters to challenge the N LR B 's authority
and its decision-m aking process.They've m ade unprecedented requests for docum ents.and som e
supporters have even called the N LR B 's action un-A m erican.
A llof this m akes D avid C am pbell,a law yer for the m achinists union,bristle.
"B oeing has engaged in w hat Iview as a really outrageous cam paign to use politicalpow er and bullying
tactics to try to stop a law enforcem ent case because it know s it's going to lose this case on the w ell-
settled law ," C am pbellsays.
B oeing has called the N LR B charges frivolous and says the law is on its side.
In the hearing,N LR B law yers act as prosecutors,w ith an adm inistrative law judge from the agency
presiding.M ost observers think B oeing w illlose the case w ithin the N LR B .B ut B oeing has vow ed to
appeal,and the com pany is likely to fare m uch better in the federalcourts.
R elated N P R Stories
U n io n W o rkers C ry F o u l O ver N ew S .C . B o ein g P lan t June 9, 2011
http://w w w .npr.org/2011/06/14/137141619/1abor-agency-challenges-boeing-factory-locatim 6/15/2011

NLRB-FOIA-00007193
B oeing L abor B attle Is P oised to G o B efore Judge - N Y T im es.com
S u b sc rib e D ig ita l H o m e D e liv e ry L o g Is R e g iste r N o w H e lp
H O M E P A G E 1 T O D A Y S P A P E R I V ID E O , M O S T P O P U L A R T IM E S T O P IC S ,
S N Y / R F C IO N
A U T O S
OrangeHomeLoons
Search A ll N Y T im es corn
x d o tioric aw e
N N O R LD
P age 1 of 3
B u sin ess D ay
B U S IN E S S T E C IIN O L O C Y S C IE N C E R E M
T R S P O R T S O P IN IO N A R T S S T Y L E T R % N E I I JO B S R E A L E S T A T E
g .a ,c h G lo b a l D e a lB o o k M a rk e ts E c o n o m y E n e rg y , M e d ia P e rso n a l T e c h S m a ll B u sin e ss Y o u r M o n e y
B oeing L abor B attle Is Poised to G o B efore Judge
W h at's P op u lar N ow
g d G 0 P S en ato r
B acks C ia.
M o n tag e in N ew
Y ork
- -------L o g In W ith F aceb o o k
L o g is to se c W m : jo u t (n e rd s
a re sh .rin g 0 1 1 1 yo n e s co r
P n vd cy P o licy 1 W h a t s T h is l>
In
P eo p le A rg u e Ju st
to lA in S ch o lars
A ssert
Im a o s
A B o o in g a sse m b v tr E ve ,e tt W a sh
E s S TE V E N G R E E N HO U S E
P .tbished June 1:3 2.91
B arring a last-m inute settlem ent, law yers for the N ational L abor
R elations B oard w ill begin arguing before a Seattle judge on T uesday
that13.keagi broke the law by building a new , nonunion production
line in South C arolina instead of expanding its unionized operations
in W ashington State.
A d d to P o rtfo lio
B o ein g C o m p an y
G o to your P ortfolio
E nlarge T his Im age
S tJp h ,
N ik k i R H a e y , le ft, Jo re rrc r o S o u th
Ira w a n ts m o re p ro d .kn o n is h e r
s a te
R EC O M M EN D
T W IT T E R
S IG N IN T O E -
M A IL
P R IN T
S IN G LE P A G E
B oeing, the N .L .R .B . and the
International A ssociation of
R E P R IN T S
M achinists and A erospace W orkers
SHAR E
local that initiated the case all still say
they w ould like to find a w ay to settle
A ppeals could grind on for years,
clouding the future of B oeing's $75o
m illion D re a m lin e r assem bly plant
scheduled to start production in July in N orth C harleston,
S.C . N egotiators and outside analysts said that any deal
w ould m ost likely require B oeing to com m it to adding som e
level of new production lines to its P uget Sound
m anufacturing hub in exchange for certain union
concessions, like a no-strike pledge.
T he labor board's top law yer says B oeing's decision to m ove
the operation to South C arolina constituted illegal
retaliation against B oeing's unionized w orkers in
W ashington for engaging in their legally protected right to
strike, including a 58-day w alkout in 2008.
B oeing has acknow ledged that the fear of labor disruptions factored into its thinking, but it
said the m ain reason for m oving the line w as South C arolina's low er production costs.
Starting pay at the South C arolina plant is $14 an hour, w hile starting pay in W ashington is
$15 an hour, rising to an average of $28 an hour.
http://w w w .nytim es.com /2011/06/14/business/14boeing:htm l?_r= 28zsrc= busln
6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00007194
B oeing L abor B attle Is Poised to G o B efore Judge - N Y T im es.com
T he case has stirred a political firestorm R epublicans have joined business leaders in
accusing the labor board of trying to sabotage right-to-w ork states as w ell as the
fundam ental right of corporate m anagers to decide how and w here to run their businesses.
Page 2 of 3
P o litics E -M ail
006
K eep u p w ith th e latest n ew s fro m W ash in g to n w ith th e
daily P olitics e-m ail new sletter
; Sinn U p
South C arolina's governor,N ikki R .H aley,w ants to m ake the dispute an issue in the
presidential cam paign,w hile C ongressional R epublicans have threatened to cut the labor
board's financing and have urged President O bam a to w ithdraw the nom ination of L afe
Solom on,the board's acting general counsel,w ho brought the B oeing case
See Sarrp ie I P riv acy P o licy
M O ST E -M A IL E D
1 V io len t C rim e So ars in A th en s
"It is absurd, in this country that represents free enterprise, that one unaccountable,
unelected,unconfirm ed acting general counsel can threaten thousands of jobs," said
Senator Jim D eM int,R epublican of South C arolina."T his is som ething you w ould expect
in a third w orld country."
A lthough the president appoints the board's top officials,the agency operates
independently.Several R epublicans have accused President O bam a of carrying w ater for
organized labor by having the board bring the case.M r.Solom on and O bam a
adm inistration officials say the W hite H ouse has had nothing to do w ith the dispute.
T he W hite H ouse has been largely silent about the case,although num erous C ongressional
D em ocrats have assailed R epublicans for attacking an agency that they say is m erely
enforcing the law and protecting w orkers'right to strike.
R E C O M M E N D E D FO R Y O U
C am eron R evises O w l h au l P lan h a C iii ish
h ealth C are
3
T H E FE M A L E FA C T O R
R eady or N ot, N ew D elhi G ets a W om en's
Street P ro tect
L og tri to discover m ore articles
b ased o n w h at y o u y e read
fl
[ L o p In [ R a g ist6 r N ew
W r
illie?
I O eulSna.
M r Solom on brought the case after the m achinists'union filed a com plaint, arguing that
the South C arolina plan w as illegally taking jobs from W ashington State.A s a rem edy,he
w ants B oeing to m ove the 1,000-em ployee production line,w hich w ill initially build three
planes a m onth, to W ashington.
M r. Solom on said in an interview that he spent three m onths in settlem ent talks w ith both
sides before the board filed the case,and that contacts continue interm ittently. "N othing
w ould m ake m e happier than to reach a settlem ent," he said
In a speech last w eek at a conference at the N ew Y ork U niversity School of L aw ,he added:
"I felt and still feel these parties have a longstanding relationship w ith each other.T hey
have a deep past together and have a deep future together,and It w ould be advantageous to
all if a settlem ent could be w orked out"
T h e F ru gal T raveler in N ap les
A L SO IN T R A V E L "
E njoy Spain's bathtub
G et rew arded even in boutique hotels
n y th n es.co m
TR AVEL
'rO V EriTiSEM EN TS
M any legal specialists say the N .L .R B .and the m achinists'union have a good chance of
w inning before the adm inistrative law judge in Seattle and in the next stage of the legal
process,an appeal to the D em ocrat-dom inated,five-seat labor board in the D istrict of
C olum bia.T he case before the law judge is expected to last w eeks as the board and B oeing
spar over w hich docum ents to turn over to the other side.
B oeing and som e legal specialists say the com pany is likely to w in in the federal circuit
court that w ould hear appeals after that.
n y tio a c m .c o rn /
tim e a b o rid e d
F,xrluuix e offers (IP IIN ered to ,y ir i,rb ry r
L en o w n 7 2 H O U R S A L E
- Save up to 15% on
T h n ik P ad lap to p s
SH O P N O W ,
B ut no one w ants the case to drag on for years.
N E X T PA G E
A v ersio n o f th is article u p u eared in p i n t o n Ju n e 1 4 2 0 1 ' o p ag e tf 1
o f h e N ew , odh edition w itt ire h ead lin e: B o en g L am E ,,ttle to G o
E eto.*e a udge
A ds by G ooqle
w hat's this ,'
D E L abor L aw P osters
SIG N IN
IN
T O E -
M A IL
PR IN T
O rder U pdated F lorida L abor L aw
P osters F or Y our W orkplace H erel
www
JJK O Ier corn
SIN G L E PA G E
R E PR IN T S
ttia
G et 50% O ff T he N ew Y ork T im es & F ree A ll D igital A ccess.
http://w w w .nytim es.com /2011/06/14/business/14boeing.htm l?_r=2& src=busIn
6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00007195
Page 3 of 3
B oeing L abor B attle Is Poised to G o B efore Judge - IslY T im es.com
M o re H ead lin es F ro m A ro u n d th e W eb
G et F ree E -m ail A lerts o n T h ese T o p ics
Sponsored U nks
B oeing C ontpan,
LIF E S C A IP T C O S I
5 W ays to Prevent D iabetes
N ational L abor R elations B oard
PC W ORLD
tJ S Q uestioned C hina A bout C hange org A ttack
L abor and Jobs
E P O LLO V E R C O M
Suits and L itigation
5 Steps to R oB ove! )our 401k .hen C hanging Jobs
K IP LIN G E R
5 G rad-School D egrees Still W orth the D ebt
A ds by G oogle
vyhats this
N o n H o d g kin s L ym p h o m a
W hatC aused It? A re Y ou Entitled
To C om pensation? W e C an H elp ,
vAivw N onH odgkinsLym phom aLaw suit corn
Ltd
IN SID E N Y I1M E S.C O M
DINING
&
THEATER
BUSINESS -
W INE -
r jt ib
ia
OPINION
H orne W
W al-M art W orkers T ry the

N onunion R oute
o rld li S
Street-L evel H igh-W ire M an
A m ongst today's overly
specialized foi eign-
policy,w e need m ore
generalists like Patrick
L eigh Ferm or.
f_ cad il'B cy m 0 5 5 I L e_ ch n g lo g y S o ictd cc H eath ao g ris O o n io ri A es
51201.'The Stew yoik risen C oxperv
P'icac5
OPINION
In E astV illage,A bsent
H arbingers ot Spring
L etters T he W ork-Fam ily
B alance tor D octors
O p-E d:T he
H um anist in
the Foxhole
ili
`toorcom
Sm all Space,B ig Flavor
First,Start the B eans
N Y /R EG IO N -
YburAd CM ),C s
errs of Se rce
T erm s of Sale C o-rec sec
Jy
Icaysi Jits f_leeL E _5M tr_ P q,los Sdo_IY 13n
A SS I H elp 1 rano cis W oo,. fo _Js
http://w w w .nytim es.com /2011/06/14/business/14boeing.htm l?_r=2& src=busln
A dvertise
6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00007196
Page 1 of 4
D aily L abor R eport
H o t T o p ic s
' E co n o m ic O u tlo o k
'
H e a lth C a re
R e c e n t T o p ic s
C u s to m iz e
A ll R e c e n t T o p ic s >
N L R B N ew F ilin g
F in d er
D isp la y L a te st F ilin g s
; K ey F ea tu res
: A n a ly s is & P e rs p e c tiv e
S p e cia l R e p o rts
: A ls o in th e C o u rts
. N L R B S u m m a rie s
W a g e T re n d In d ic a to r
C a le n d a r o f E ve n ts
L a w F irm s
E p ste in B e cke r & G re e n
G ib so n D u n n
'
W o m b le C a rlyle
A ll L a w F irm s >
A g e n c ie s
C u s to m iz e
A ll A g e n c ie s >
S ta te s
C u s to m iz e
A ll S ta te s >
C o u rts /T rib u n a ls
C u s to m iz e
A ll C o u rts /T rib u n a ls >
F e d e ra l S ta tu te s
A ll F e d e ra l S ta tu te s >
In d u s trie s
A ll In d u s trie s >
U n io n s
D a ily L a b o r R e p o rt: N e w s A rch ive > 2 0 1 1 > Ju n e > 0 6 /1 4 /2 0 1 1 > L e
L a b o r P ra ctice s: H e a rin g O p e n s in S e a ttle o n U L P C o m p la in t A ccu sin g
A g a in st IA M
U n fa ir L a b o r P ra c tic e s
H e a rin g O p e n s in S e a ttle o n U L P C o m p la in t
A c c u s in g B o e in g o f R e ta lia tin g A g a in s t IA M
S E A T T L E N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd a n d B o e in g C o . a tto rn e y5
th e o p e n in g sa lvo s in a h e a rin g b e fo re a n a d m in istra tive la w ju d g e
w h e th e r th e co m p a n y cre a te d a se co n d 7 8 7 D re a m lin e r a sse m b ly Ii
p la n t in S o u th C a ro lin a to re ta lia te a g a in st a u n io n w o rkfo rce o n P u
lo n g h isto ry o f su cce ssfu lly w ie ld in g its la w fu l rig h t to strike .
T h e first d a y in clu d e d sh o rt p re lim in a ry sta te m e n ts b y M a ra -L o u ise
a tto rn e y in th e S e a ttle re g io n a l o ffice p ro se cu tin g th e ca se o n b e h a
a ctin g g e n e ra l co u n se l, a n d B o e in g le a d o u tsid e co u n se l B ill K ilb e rg
D u n n & C ru tch e r in W a sh in g to n , D .C . B o e in g th e n su b m itte d a m o t
a n d A d m in istra tive L a w Ju d g e C liffo rd H . A n d e rso n d ire cte d th e p a r
se ve ra l h o u rs a tte m p tin g to re so lve d isp u te s o ve r d o cu m e n t re q u e !
R e g a rd in g th e m o tio n to d ism iss, th e A U d ire cte d N L R B to file a n o
Ju n e 2 1 a n d B o e in g to file a re p ly b rie f b y Ju n e 2 4 . F o rm a l o p e n in g
th e ca se a re n o t like ly to o ccu r fo r a co u p le o f w e e ks.
P ro c e e d in g s L ik e ly to S tre tc h T h ro u g h S u m m e r
A tto rn e ys a n d sp o ke sp e rso n s re p re se n tin g b o th B o e in g a n d In te rn E
A sso cia tio n o f M a ch in ists D istrict L o d g e 7 5 1 to ld B N A th e p ro ce e d in
stre tch o u t th ro u g h th is su m m e r a n d in clu d e a p p e a ra n ce s b y h ig h -
e xe cu tive s w h o m a d e a lle g e d ly co e rcive a n d w e ll-d o cu m e n te d ste t(
m e m b e rs o f th e n e w s m e d ia a n d th e ir o w n w o rkfo rce .
A n d e rso n m a d e o n e ru lin g sh o rtly b e fo re th e h e a rin g o p e n e d th a t r
sta te s to a d d re ss th e issu e o f a n a p p ro p ria te N L R B re m e d y if th e a
B o e in g vio la te d fe d e ra l la b o r la w . O n Ju n e 9 , th e a tto rn e ys g e n e ra l
file d a jo in t m o tio n to file a n a m icu s b rie f in su p p o rt o f B o e in g (1 1 1
6 /9 /1 1 ). T h e A U co n clu d e d th a t it w o u ld b e in a p p ro p ria te to a cce p
B o e in g , b u t h e ru le d th a t th e b rie f ca n b e co n sid e re d o n th e issu e c
co m p la in t b e su sta in e d in w h o le o r in p a rt."
T h e A U sa id re p e a te d ly th a t h e p la n s to ru le o n a n issu e ra ise d b y
a sse rts th a t "th e co m p la in t is u ltra vire s b e ca u se th e A ctin g G e n e rz
o ffice o f A ctin g G e n e ra l C o u n se l a t th e tim e h e d ire cte d th a t th e C o
issu e "a sto n e in m y sh o e ," sa id h e w o u ld ru le o n it w h e th e r o r n o t
strike th a t p o rtio n o f B o e in g 's a n sw e r.
T o a cco m m o d a te sp e cta to rs, th e h e a rin g w a s m o ve d fro m a h e a n n
o ld e n b a n c co u rtro o m n o rm a lly u se d b y th e U .S . C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
to ld B N A th e ca se w o u ld like ly in clu d e a vid e o ta p e d p re se n ta tio n o f
re p o rte r w ith B o e in g C o m m e rcia l A irp la n e s C h ie f E xe cu tive O ffice r.
T h e cru x o f th e b o a rd 's co m p la in t file d A p ril 2 0 a g a in st th e a ircra f
e xe cu tive s "m a d e co e rcive sta te m e n ts to its e m p lo ye e s th a t it w o u
b e ca u se e m p lo ye e s h a d stru ck a n d R e sp o n d e n t th re a te n e d o r im p li
a d d itio n a l w o rk in th e e ve n t o f fu tu re strike s" (7 7 D L R A A -1 , 4 /2 1 /
T h e U L P co m p la in t a lle g e s th a t th e co m p a n y's a ctio n s vio la te d N a ti.
w h ich p ro h ib its a n e m p lo ye r fro m in te rfe rin g w ith , re stra in in g o r co
u n d e r th e fe d e ra l la b o r la w , a n d S e ctio n 8 (a )(3 ), w h ich m a ke s it a r
d iscrim in a tio n in re g a rd to h ire o r te n u re o f e m p lo ym e n t o r a n y te r
d isco u ra g e m e m b e rsh ip in a n y la b o r o rg a n iza tio n ."
http://new s.bna.com /dlln/D L L N W B /doc_display.adp?fedfid=21058944& vnam e=d1rnotalli.. . 6/15/2011

NLRB-FOIA-00007197
Page 2 of 4

A ll U n io n s >
B o e in g M o v e s to D is m is s C o m p la in t
"If yo u ta ke e ve ryth in g in th a t co m p la in t a s tru e , it d o e s n o t cre a te
B o e in g 's m o tio n to d ism iss th e N L R B co m p la in t.
"T h is ca se a s a lle g e d ... is a va ria n t o f a ru n a w a y sh o p ca se ," h e sa
L a b o r D e p a rtm e n t fro m 1 9 7 3 to 1 9 7 7 , a sse rte d th a t B o e in g h a s ad
region.
"S o its a ra th e r stra n g e ru n a w a y sh o p ca se . N o o n e is in ju re d . N o
th e B o a rd ta lks a b o u t w o rk b e in g tra n sfe rre d , w h a t w o rk th e y a re r
In th e M a rch 2 0 1 0 S e a ttle T im e s in te rvie w , A lb a u g h sa ys:
"T h e issu e la st fa ll w a s re a lly a b o u t h o w w e co u ld e n su l
co u ld e n su re th a t w e w e re co m p e titive o ve r th e lo n g h E
p ro d u ctive d iscu ssio n s w ith th e U n io n , a n d th e n u n fo rt(
a g re e m e n t w h e re w e fe lt th a t w e co u ld e n su re p ro d u cti
g e ttin g a w a y fro m th e fre q u e n t strike s th a t w e w e re h a
ra te o f e sca la tio n o f w a g e s. A n d w e co u ld ju st n o t g e t t
w in fo r b o th o u rse lve s a n d th e u n io n . S o w e m a d e th e i
ve ry h o p e fu l a s w e co n tin u e to h a ve d iscu ssio n s w ith tl.
u p w ith w a ys o f b e in g co m p e titive h e re a n d w e ca n co n
w e 're n o t g o in g to h a ve la b o r strike s. A n d if w e ca n g e t
b e d o in g w o rk h e re fo r a lo n g , lo n g tim e ."
K ilb e rg d e cla re d in th e co u rtro o m th a t th e N L R B co m p la in t "m isch a
m a d e to th e p re ss. H e ca lle d N L R B 's tre a tm e n t o f su ch in te rvie w s"
B u t e ve n a s A n d e rso n p a rse s su ch sta te m e n ts to d isce rn th e ir m e a
a p p ro p ria te b u sin e ss d e cisio n s o r w e re m o tiva te d b y re ta lia tio n fo r
p o rtra y th e m a s p ro te cte d sp e e ch u n d e r b o th th e F irst A m e n d m e n t
e m p lo ye r to re sp o n d to u n io n a ctivity w ith "a n y vie w s, a rg u m e n t, c
n o th re a t o f re p risa l o r fo rce o r p ro m ise o f b e n e fit."
'V e ry S im p le ,' b u t 'E g re g io u s ' C a s e , IA M A tto rn e y S a y s
In a co n fe re n ce ca ll w ith re p o rte rs Ju n e 1 4 , re p re se n ta tive s o f IA M
in th e ca se a g a in st B o e in g a n d th e ir d e te rm in a tio n to p u rsu e th e cz
C h risto p h e r C o rso n , IA M 's g e n e ra l co u n se l, ca lle d th e u n fa ir la b o r p
a "ve ry sim p le " b u t "e g re g io u s" ca se . C o rso n sa id th a t co m p a n y e x
p ro d u ctio n fro m W a sh in g to n sta te to S o u th C a ro lin a b e ca u se th e If
a re a h a d e n g a g e d e a rlie r in la w fu l w o rk sto p p a g e s. In d iscu ssin g tl-
sa id , e xe cu tive s a lso re fe rre d to th e p o ssib ility th a t th e u n io n m ig h
W a sh in g to n w o rke rs.
T h e e m p lo ye e s'p a rticip a tio n in w o rk sto p p a g e s a n d th e ir su p p o rt fl
p ro te ctio n o f th e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s A ct, C o rso n sa id , a n d h e
ta ke w o rk a w a y fro m th e u n io n -re p re se n te d w o rke rs, "th a t's w ro n g
C o rso n sa id h e p a rticip a te d in a Ju n e 1 4 co n fe re n ce ca ll w ith th e A l
e stim a te d th a t it w o u ld ta ke a b o u t six w e e ks o f h e a rin g s to try th e
sch e d u le th e six w e e ks co n se cu tive ly, C o rso n sa id .
C o n n ie K e llih e r, a sp o ke sw o m a n fo r D istrict L o d g e 7 5 1 , sa id sh e h a
ca lle d th e m a n a g e m e n t co m m e n ts co n ce rn in g b u ild in g a D re a m lin e
u n p re ce d e n te d .
In co n n e ctin g th e d e cisio n to p a st strike s in W a sh in g to n , sh e sa id ,
re p e a te d ly" w a rn in g th e u n io n -re p re se n te d w o rke rs th a t "if yo u e v(

NLRB-FOIA-00007198
Page 3 of 4
A ske d w h a t sh e w o u ld te ll S o u th C a ro lin a e m p lo ye e s w h o m ig h t lo s
sh ifte d to W a sh in g to n , K e llih e r sa id th e re w o u ld b e n o re a so n th o s(
B o e in g "ca n fill th a t fa cto ry 1 0 tim e s o ve r" w ith w o rk th a t is n o w p i
sa id th a t th e co m p a n y sh o u ld b rin g su ch w o rk b a ck a n d a ssig n it tc
B o e in g A tta c k s N L R B
In a press re le a se issu e d le ss th a n 2 4 h o u rs b e fo re A n d e rso n o p e n (
a lle g e d ly co e rcive sta te m e n ts b y its e xe cu tive s cite d in th e co m p la i
in te n t to 'th re a te n a n d p u n ish u n io n e m p lo ye e s'b y th e N L R B ."
T h e co m p a n y d e cla re d , "W e b e lie ve th e co m p la in t is le g a lly frivo lm
C o u rt p re ce d e n t." A n d th e co m p a n y re fe rs to a M a y 3 le tte r fro m B
M ich e l L u ttig to N L R B A ctin g G e n e ra l C o u n se l L a fe S o lo m o n in w h ic
m isch a ra cte n za tio n s o f B o e in g e xe cu tive s a n d th e ir a ctio n s."
H o w e ve r, IA M 's le a d a tto rn e y, D a vid C a m p b e ll o f S ch w e rin C a m p b (
Ju n e 1 0 th a t if B o e in g a tte m p ts to w in th e ca se b y ch a lle n g in g it o r
ju d g m e n t, th e co m p la in t sta n d s u p to th e le g a l te st a n d th e ir m o tic
o b se rve d th a t th e co m p a n y's "b ig g e st a rg u m e n t" is th a t th e y o p e n i
re ta lia tio n fo r p a st strike s, b u t fo r o th e r e co n o m ic re a so n s. "A n d th
b ig d e a l," h e sa id .
T h e a tto rn e ys a t th e h e a rin g sp e n t m u ch o f th e first d a y d iscu ssin g
B N A th a t N L R B h a s m a d e "5 3 re q u e sts a n d th e y a re ve ry, ve ry b ro .
e ve ryb o d y w h o w a s in vo lve d in th e d e cisio n to o p e n a p la n t in C h a i
re q u e sts to b e m o re "ra tio n a l," K i!b e rg sa id . "T h is is B o e in g . W e co
o f p a p e r," h e a d d e d .
'O v e rtly P o litic a l T a c tic s .'
T h e ca se co m m e n ce s a g a in st a h ig h ly p o litica lly ch a rg e d a tm o sp h e
a llie s in C o n g re ss h a ve so u g h t to p u t N L R B o n tria l fo r a lle g e d ly a b i
case.
In M a y, 3 5 R e p u b lica n se n a to rs in tro d u ce d a b ill th a t w o u ld lim it th
re lo ca tin g o r e xp a n d in g to n e w o r e xistin g fa cilitie s (9 5 D L R C -1 , 5 ,
S o lo m o n a le tte r in M a y lin kin g h is n o m in a tio n to b e N L R B g e n e ra l
5 /3 /1 1 ). A n d th e ch a irm a n o f th e H o u se C o m m itte e o n O ve rsig h t a
su b p o e n a S o lo m o n to a p p e a r b e fo re a fie ld h e a rin g in S o u th C a ro li!
C a m p b e ll d e crie d th e p o liticiza tio n o f th e ca se , sa yin g in a n IA M stE
h a ve n e ve r se e n a n e m p lo ye r u se th e se typ e s o f o ve rtly p o litica l ta
sh o w s a ll to o cle a rly h o w d e sp e ra te th e C o m p a n y is to a vo id litig a ti
S o lo m o n d e fe n d e d h im se lf in a M a y 9 sta te m e n t sa yin g : "th e re is r
th e co m p la in t a g a in st th e B o e in g C o m p a n y," w h ich h e a sse rte d "in ,
u n iq u e to th is ca se . W e h o p e a ll in te re ste d p a rtie s re sp e ct th e le g a l
ca se in th e m e d ia a n d p u b lic a re n a ."
R e p u b lic a n S e n a to rs C a ll fo r E n d to C a s e
A s th e N L R B h e a rin g o p e n e d in S e a ttle , S o u th C a ro lin a 's R e p u b lica i
th e co m p la in t a g a in st B o e in g a n d ca lle d o n P re sid e n t O b a m a to a d c
C a llin g th e u n fa ir la b o r p ra ctice co m p la in t "frivo lo u s," S e n . L in d se y
W a sh in g to n , D .C ., "n o w 's th e tim e fo r P re sid e n t O b a m a a n d th e a d
th a t th e y h a ve fa ith in B o e in g a s a co m p a n y a n d th e se a re g o o d p c
co m p a n y."
A ckn o w le d g in g th a t "I kn o w th e a d m in istra tio n ca n n o t ta ke sid e s, t
b u sin e ss m o d e l B o e in g h a s u se d ," G ra h a m sa id N L R B is se e kin g a r
a fte r B o e in g h a s sp e n t $ 7 5 0 m illio n to sta rt p ro d u ctio n in S o u th C a
U n ite d S ta te s, p e o p le w o u ld n 't d o b u sin e ss in th e U n ite d S ta te s," h
S e n . Jim D e M in t (R -S .C .) to ld re p o rte rs th a t N L R B cla im s o n its o w
.- In is i- c
n f k n i- I, ii n in n
n n e l n n n o
o n
o n n
,A In t - 1 ,....c .
h e It h a ,I-o m r n e s r l iln .4 - o n
http://new s.bna.com /dlln/D L L N W B /doc_display.adp?fedfid= 21058944& vnam e= d1rnotalli.. . 6 /1 5 /2 0 1 1

NLRB-FOIA-00007199
Page 4 of 4
I 1 9 1 1 1 ..Z
V I L A J L I I U I IIV I I 0 1
Ill 1 M
/1 1 1 .1 1 1 M
/1 i V V V I I\ G
I a , !J U L
I IC
L A
1 0 1
9 G
L I IC IL
III
u n a cco u n ta b le b o a rd is d o in g th e b id d in g o f u n io n b o sse s a n d n o t
S ta tin g "a co m p a n y like B o e in g sh o u ld n o t b e fo rce d to sp e n d m illi(
o th e r co m p a n y th a t w o u ld w a n t to m o ve to a rig h t-to -w o rk sta te ,"
to th is. H e ca n ; h e sto cke d th is b o a rd w ith h is p e o p le . It's tim e to E
T o a cce ss th e S e a ttle T im e s in te rvie w w ith A lb a u g h g o to
h ttp ://se a ttle tim e s.n w so u rce .co m /h tm l/n a tio n w o rld /2 0 1 1 2 3 7 5 ,
co m p la in t a n d o th e r d o cu m e n ts m a y b e a cce sse d a t h ttp ://m in
H o m e I A b o u t I H e lp
C o n ta ct U s o r ca ll 1 -8 0 0 -3 7 2
IS S N 1 5 2 2 -5 9 6 8
C o p y rig h t 2 0 1 1 , T h e B u re a u o f N a tio n a l A ffa irs , In c . I C o p y rig h t F A Q s I In te rr
R e p ro d u c tio n o r re d is trib u tio n , in w h o le o r in p a rt, a n d in a n y fo rm , w ith o u t e x p re

NLRB-FOIA-00007200
3/18/11
M ike L uttig, B oeing's G C , called m e at 2 pm . H e told m e that he w as "m iffed" that
although he had done w hat I asked (gotten B oeing to agree that no unit ees w ould be laid
off betw een now and the end of the contract expiration in Sept,2012),I w as still
considering issuing com plaint.I told him that the M achinists had proposed that the
parties m eet for a 2-w eek period w ith a m ediator and that I thought that if B oeing
accepted that offer,the parties m ight w ell reach a settlem ent.H e told m e that rather than
accept that offer,he thought that he w ould go to the H ill to prevent m e from litigating the
case.I told him that he w ould have to get such a rider through the Senate.I said that I had
the C E O on tape saying that the m ove to SC w as not because of econom ics but because
the M achinists strike.I said I had a triable case and that I w ould do w hatever I thought
w as right under the N L R A .B ut I reiterated that I thought the parties should m eet and try
to reach a settlem ent.
3/28/11
L uttig called and I asked B arry K earney to be on the call w ith m e.L uttig said that B oeing
w ould not agree to a conversation w ith the M achinists w ith a m ediator,but that he w as
w illing to talk to them .H e said he w ould call them this w eek.
4/8/11
Senator G raham called m e at 11:15 am .I w as in the M useum of M odern A rt in N Y C and
talked to him on m y cell phone.H e told m e that the "retaliatory charge" of the M achinists
against B oeing w ould have huge econom ic and political consequences.H e said that the
charge w ould scare B oeing's custom ers and could affect orders.H e said that the political
fallout w ould be huge and that he w as m ore reasonable than his Senate counterpart (Sen.
D e M int).
I explained to him that I had been trying to settle this case for the last 6 m onths,and I
asked for his help in getting B oeing to agree to the M achinists'request for a 2-w eek
m ediated conversation.I told him that this case had every potential to settle as B oeing's
business w as boom ing and that the parties had both indicated to m e that their futures
w ere 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 m e.I also told him that I w ould not
be seeking the dism antling of the S.0 plant and that I had m ade it clear to the M achinists
that that plant w as here to stay.
H e said that he w as pessim istic that the M achinists and B oeing could w ork things out,but
that he never thought it w as a bad idea to talk.I thanked him for being w illing to help.
4/11/11
I left a m essage for D ebbie D urkin,the aide to Senator G raham w ho place the call on Fri.
I received a call back from W alt K uhn at noon.I told him that I w as follow ing up on m y
NLRB-FOIA-00007201
conversation w ith the Senator on Friand that I w anted to know if he had been successful
in contacting B oeing.H e said that the Senator w ould call m e back later this w eek.I told
W alt thatI w as ready to begin the com plaint process and that I could not hold it up
indefinitely.I said thatI w anted to talk to the Senator today if possible,and he said that
he w ould see w hathe could do.
4/11/11
Senator G raham called m e at 3 pm .H e said thathe had talked to B oeing,and they had no
interest in m ediating the com plaint,w hich w as totally w ithout m erit.H e said that he
agreed w ith B oeing and understood their position.H e said that if a com plaint w as filed,it
w ill be "nasty," "very,very nasty." H e said that this w as a case of how not to grow the
econom y.H e said that w e had to do w hat w e had to do,and he had to do w hat he had to
do.It w as up to us.H e said that if com plaint issued,he w as going "full guns a-blazing."
NLRB-FOIA-00007202
B oeing union case tests vulnerable D em ocrats - Scott W ong and L aura H autala - PO L IT I... Page 1 of 4
P O L IT IC O I C o n g re ss I B o e in g u n io n ca se te sts vu ln e ra b le D e m o cra ts
B o ein g u n io n case tests vu ln erab le
D em o crats
B en N elson, M ary Landrieu and B illN elson are steering clear of the B oeing issue. I A P
Photos
H a le y, e le cte d la st fa ll w ith stro n g te a p a rty b a ckin g , is co n sid e re d a
p o w e rfu l e n d o rse m e n t fo r p re sid e n tia l a sp ira n ts, e sp e cia lly g ive n -th e fa ct
th a t h e rs is a n e a rly p rim a ry sta te . A n d sh e h a s ch a lle n g e d ca n d id a te s in h e r
p a rty to "ste p u p " in th e B o e in g fig h t.
S o m e W h ite H o u se h o p e fu ls d id ju st th a t d u rin g a G O P p rim a ry d e b a te
M o n d a y n ig h t in D e rry, N .H ., p le d g in g to d e fe n d th e n a tio n 's 2 2 rig h t-to -w o rk
states.
L isten
http://w w w .politico.com /new s/stories/0611/57068_Page2.htm l
6/16/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00007203
B oeing union case tests vulnerable D em ocrats - Scott W ong and L aura H autala - PO L IT I... Page 2 of 4
"W e live in the U nited S tates of A m erica, and people shouldn't be forced to
belong or be a m em ber in any organization," said form er M innesota G ov.
T im P aw lenty. "A nd the governm ent has no business telling people w hat
group you have to be a m em ber of or not."
"T he right-to-w ork states are creating a lot m ore jobs today than the heavily
unionized states," added form er H ouse S peaker N ew t G ingrich.
A nd businessm an H erm an C ain said the O bam a adm inistration through
the actions of the N LR B is "killing our free-m arket system ."
S enate G O P leaders continued the assault against O bam a and the N LR B at
a new s conference T uesday, w ith S en. Jim D eM int (R -S .C .) arguing that
governm ent interference w illresult in firm s shipping jobs overseas. H e's
rolled out legislation w ith G raham and S enate R epublican C onference
C hairm an Lam ar A lexander (R -T enn.) that w ould bar the labor board from
telling a firm it can't m ove from one site to another.
"T his unelected, unaccountable board is doing the bidding of union bosses
and not protecting w orkers, either union or nonunion," D eM int told reporters.
"A nd w e do callon the president to speak out. It's tim e that A m erica hears
from you. A re you really for jobs in this country or jobs in another country?"
R epublicans have vow ed to block the confirm ations of tw o of O bam a's
nom inees to the N LR B : A cting G eneralC ounsel Lafe S olom on and board
m em ber C raig B ecker, a form er union law yer w hom O bam a granted a
tem porary recess appointm ent last year.
G raham on T uesday repeated his threat to block O bam a's pick for
com m erce secretary, businessm an and form er B oeing board m em ber John
6/16/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00007204
Boeing union case tests vulnerable D em ocrats - Scott W ong and L aura H autala - PO L IT I...Page 3 of 4
B ryson, untilthe president speaks out against the B oeing suit, w hich
originated w ith the InternationalA ssociation of M achinists. B ryson stepped
dow n from B oeing on T uesday.
W hile the N LR B is an independent agency, the president does appoint its
five board m em bers. F or the m ost part, the W hite H ouse has been silent on
the law suit, saying the board operates independently.
R ead m o re ab o u t:
D em ocrats,
U n ion s,
B oein g,
B u sin ess,
A viation ,
B en N elson ,
B ill N elson ,
2012 E lection s,
2012,
2012
r-
3 ;
- -
G et rep orter alerts
S cott W ong
Laura H autala
M ore on P O L ITIC O
6/16/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00007205
. B oeing union case tests vulnerable D em ocrats - S cott W ong and L aura H autala - P O L IT I... P age 4 of 4
T ip S h eets
N ew s
PO LIT IC O
H om e
2012 LIV E
44
A rena
C ongress
O pinion
V ideo
PO LIT IC O
Pro
B en S m ith
D avid
C atanese
C LIC K
O n
C ongress
O n M edia
Josh
G erstein
P olicy
M ore Info
M oney
H ealth C are
E nergy
D efense
T echnology
A bout U s
A dvertising
A rticle A rchive
B reaking
N ew s A lerts
C om m unity
E m ploym ent
FA Q
Log
in/R egister
2011 P O LIT IC O LLC
Playbook
M orning
S core
M orning
M oney
Pulse
H uddle
M orning
E nergy
M orning
D efense
M orning T ech
Influence
M obile
PO LIT IC O
PO LIT IC O
Jobs
R S S / W idgets
S ite M ap
S tore
S ubscription
T e rm s o f S e rvice P riva cy P o licy
6/16/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00007206
1747 Pennsylvania A venue,N W ,Suite 250
W ashington,D C 20006
June 16,2011
M r.L afe Solom on
A cting G eneral C ounsel
1099 14th Street,N W ,Suite 10100
W ashington,D C 20570-0001
D ear M r.Solom on:
D uring a tim e w hen states are recovering from a recession,the best announcem ent a governor
can m ake is one about new investm ent and jobs.W hen a com pany chooses to com e to a state,it
does so because the state has a low cost of doing business,a trained w orkforce,and a favorable
regulatory clim ate.If the com pany chooses to locate in a right-to-w ork state,that is an added
bonus.
In O ctober 2009,South C arolina w elcom ed B oeing to N orth C harleston w here the com pany's
second line of 787 D ream liners w ould be produced and assem bled in a new state-of-the-art
facility.B y investing billions of dollars in the state and creating thousands of quality jobs,
B oeing w ith just one announcem ent changed the face of South C arolina forever.
H ow ever,in A pril,you and the N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ) issued a C om plaint and
N otice of H earing for a charge claim ing that B oeing's decision to build a new and additional line
in South C arolina,instead of W ashington,w as based on anti-union sentim ents.T o that claim ,
the facts are clear.A lthough South C arolina is a right-to-w ork state and W ashington is not,
B oeing continues to invest m oney and create jobs in both states w ith seem ingly little regard to
their differing labor policies. B oeing is not transferring w ork from a union to a non-union state;
B oeing is creating new w ork in both states.
W hile B oeing is com m itted to doing business w ith union and non-union states,the N L R B has
overstepped its m andate to protect the rights of laborers and has instead opted to protect only the
interests of organized labor.T his underm ines the principles of free m arket capitalism upon
w hich this nation is built.It is clear that if the N L R B can charge B oeing and punish South
C arolina,then it can do so to other com panies and other states.
W hen w e,as governors,are fighting to im prove the econom ic interests of our states,the federal
governm ent should not stand in our w ay.W hile governors are trying to break the ties that bind
NLRB-FOIA-00007207
free enterprises from doing business,the federalgovernm entshould nottellB oeing w here itcan
build airplanes.
B y issuing com plaints againstbusinesses for exercising their basic rights,as the N L R B has done,
a clear m essage is sentto allbusinesses thatthey are notw elcom e,thattheir jobs are notfitfor
our citizens,and thatthe benefits of their success should notbe shared w ith our com m unities.
A ccordingly,w e ask thatyou dism iss your case againstB oeing:C ase 19-C A -32431.
Sincerely,
Afo.ra
G overnor N ikkiH aley
South C arolina
G overnor M itch D aniels
Indiana
G overnor T erry E .B ranstad
Iow a
G overnor R obert J.B entley
A labam a
Lime)
G overnor R ick Scott
Florida
G overnor N athan D eal
G eorgia
g d * tfS ;x .,
G overnor PaulR .L ePage
M aine
G overn or H aley B arb ou r
M ississippi
a44_
G overnor M ary Fallin
O klahom a
G overnor C .L ."B utch" O tter
Idaho
NLRB-FOIA-00007208
./-
G overnor D ennis D augaard
South D akota
G overnor B illH aslam
T ennessee
G overnor R ick Perry
T exas
iy
aeA titt.4.
G overnor G ary R .H erbert
U tah
_ ,
1'
e_
G overnor R obert F.M cD onnell
V irginia
G overnor M atthew H .M ead
W yom ing
NLRB-FOIA-00007209
J. M ichael L uttig
E xe cutive \ho e P re side .n t
G e n e ra l C o u n se l
T h e B o e in g C o m p a n y
100 N R ive rsid e M G 5 0 0 3 -6 0 2 7
C h ica g o , IL 6 0 6 0 6 -1 5 9 6
M ay 3.2011
L afe E . Solom on, E squire
1099 14th Street,N .W .
W ashington, D .C . 20570-0001
D ear M r.Solom on:
I w rite regarding statem ents in your com plaint and elsew here including
statem ents attributed to you in the N e w Y o rk T im e s on A pril 23 about B oeing's
decision to place its new 787 final assem bly line in South C arolina. A num ber of
these statem ents, w hich are critical to your case against B oeing,fundam entally
m isquote or m ischaracterize statem ents by B oeing executives and actions taken by
the C om pany. Y ou have a responsibility to correct these m isquotations and
m ischaracterizations, for the public record and also for purposes of the com plaint you
have filed. T hrough these m isquotations and m ischaracterizations, you have done a
grave disservice to T he B oeing C om pany, its executives and shareholders, and to the
160,000 B oeing em ployees w orldw ide. A nd, of course, you have filed a com plaint
based upon these m isstatem ents that cannot be credibly m aintained under law .
Your Statem ent That B oeing "Transferred" U nion W ork
A s an initial m atter, repeated statem ents in the com plaint allege that B oeing
"rem oved w ork" from Puget Sound (16), "decided to tra n sfe r its second 787
D ream liner production line" to South C arolina (17(a)),and "decided to tra n sfe r a
sourcing supply program " to South C arolina (18(a)). Y our A pril 20 press release
m akes the sam e assertion: "T he N L R B launched an investigation of the tra n sfe r of
second line w ork in response to charges filed by the M achinists union and found
reasonable cause to believe that B oeing had violated tw o sections of the N ational
L abor R elations A ct."
A s you w ell know , no w ork none at all-- -w as "rem oved" or "transferred"
from Puget Sound. T he second line for the 787 is a new final assem bly line. A s it
did not previously exist in Puget Sound or elsew here, the second assem bly line could
not have been "rem oved" from , "transferred" or otherw ise "m oved" to South
C arolina. Sim ply put, the w ork that is and w ill be done at our C harleston, South
C arolina final assem bly facility is new w ork, required and added in response to the
historic custom er dem and for the 787. N o m em ber of the International A ssociation of
M achinists'union (1A M ) in Puget Sound has lost his or her job, or otherw ise suffered
NLRB-FOIA-00007210
any adverse em ploym ent action,as a result of the placem ent of this new w ork in the
State of South C arolina.
Y our ow n R egional D irector,w hose office you have tasked w ith prosecuting
this case,understands that,and has accurately and publicly described the m atter
differently than you.A s the Seattle T im es reported last year,"R ichard A hearn,the
N L R B regional director investigating the com plaint,said it w ould have been an easier
case for the union to argue if B oeing had m oved existing w ork from E verett,rather
than placing new w ork in C harleston." D om inic G ates, M achinists F ile U nfair Labor
C harge A gainst B oeing over C harleston, Seattle T im es,June 4,2010.
ER
Since no actual w ork w as "transferred," it now appears that N L R B officials
are already,via public statem ents,transform ing the theory of the com plaint to say
that,because B oeing com m itted to the State of W ashington that it w ould build all of
the C om pany's 787s in that state,the building of airplanes in South C arolina
constitutes "transferred" w ork or w ork "rem oved." T hus,on A pril 26,an N L R B
spokesw om an,N ancy C leeland,apparently told a new s organization that "the charge
that B oeing is transferring w ork aw ay from union em ployees stem s from the
com pany's original com m itm ent 'to the State of W ashington that it w ould build the
D ream liner airplanes in this state.
T he prem ise underlying that assertion that B oeing com m itted to the State of
W ashington to build all of the C om pany's 787s in W ashington is false.B oeing did
not com m it to the State of W ashington that it w ould build all of its 787s in that state.
B oeing honored and fully all of its contractual com m itm ents to the State of
W ashington long before the decision to locate the C om pany's new production facility
in South C arolina.T he notion that B oeing had som ehow com m itted to W ashington
State to build all 787s in that state is neither m entioned nor even suggested either in
the IA M 's charge or in your recently filed com plaint,and you never asserted that
B oeing had m ade such contractual com m itm ents to the State of W ashington in the
several discussions w e have had w ith you in the m onths preceding your filing of the
com plaint.H ad you done so,w e w ould have explained to you w hy such an
understanding w as plainly incorrect.I call upon you to quickly and fully correct the
record on this point.In addition to being w holly uninform ed,it creates the
im pression that you and your office are now in search of a theory that w ill support a
predeterm ined outcom e,even a theory that has nothing to do w ith the N ational L abor
R elations A ct.
Your S tatem ent That B oeing S ought To "P unish" U nion E m ployees
M ischaracterizing w hat B oeing did by calling it a "transfer" of w ork,or
suggesting that B oeing broke com m itm ents to the State of W ashington,is had
enough.Far m ore egregious,how ever,are the statem ents that have been m ade
concerning the m otives and intent of B oeing's leaders specifically,that senior
B oeing executives sought to "punish" union em ployees and to "threaten" them for
NLRB-FOIA-00007211
their past and possible future strikes,through the C om pany's statem ents and its
location of the second final assem bly line in South C arolina.
T he N ew York Tim es quotes you as saying that B oeing "had a consistent
m essage that [the C om pany and its E xecutives] w ere doing this to punish their
em ployees for having struck and having the pow er to strike in the future." (Steven
G reenhouse, Labor B oard ('asc A gainst B oeing P oints to F ights to C om e, N ew Y ork
T im es,A pril 23,2010,em phasis added.) N either your com plaint nor the post-hoc
statem ents you and other officials of the N L R B have m ade since the tiling of the
com plaint offers a single B oeing statem ent let alone a "consistent m essage" that
B oeing acted to "punish" its em ployees,and,needless to say,you offer no evidence
of this in your national m edia interview either.
T he com plaint alleges that B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes C E O Jim A lbaugh
stated that B oeing "decided to locate its 787 D ream liner second line in South
C arolina because of past U nit strikes,and threatened the loss of future U nit w ork
opportunities because of such strikes." (C om plaint116(e).) T he com plaint cites a
M arch 2,2010 interview of M r.A lbaugh by the Seattle T im es,but does not purport to
be quoting any particular statem ent.T he N L R B 's w ebsite,how ever,offers a "fact
sheet" that quotes M r.A lbaugh as saying: "T he overriding factor [in transferring the
line.] w as not the business clim ate.A nd it w as not the w ages w e're paying today.It
w as that w e cannot afford to have a w ork stoppage,,you know ,every three years."
http:j!nlrb.gov liode;44-3
It w ould,of course,have been entirely perm issible under existing law for M r.
A lbaugh to have m ade a statem ent that the C om pany considered the econom ic costs
of future strikes in its business decision to locate w ork in South C arolina or even
that it w as the sole reason for such decision.B ut M r.A lbaugh did not even say either
of these things.M r.A lbaugh's full statem ent w as as follow s:
W ell I think you can probably say that about all the states in the country right
now w ith the econom y being w hat it is.B ut again,the overriding factor w as
not the business clim ate and it w as not the w ages w e're paying people today.
It w as that w e can't afford to have a w ork stoppage every three years. W e
can't afford to continue the rate of escalation of w ages as w e have in the past.
You know ,those are the overriding factors.A nd m y bias w as to stay here but
w e could not gel those tw o issues done despite the bestefforts of the U nion
and the bestefibrts ofthe com pany.
T he italicized sentences w hich w ere deliberately om itted from your office's
presentation of this quotation on its w ebsite m ake clear that M r.A lbaugh w as
referencing tw o,rather than one,"overriding factors," only one of w hich is the risk of
a future strike.T hese are critical om issions that directly contradict your apparent
theory of this case.
NLRB-FOIA-00007212
.M oreover,no reasonable reader of M r.A lbaug,h's interview w ould depict it as
part of a "consistent m essage" that B oeing sought to "punish" its union em ployees.
M r.A lbaugh expresses his "bias" in favor of Puget Sound and lauds the good-faith
efforts of both sides.H e explains that the com pany's preference w as to locate the
new production line in Puget Sound and that both the com pany and the union m ade
good-faith elT hrts to accom plish that shared objective.T hus,w hen not m isquoted,it
is not even arguable that M r.A lbaugh's statem ent constitutes a "m essage" of
"punishm ent" to the union for its past or future strike capability.
T he com plaint's attem pt to depict a statem ent by Jim M cN erney,B oeing's
C hairm an and C hief E xecutive O fficer,as a threat to punish union em ployees is but
another exam ple of m ischaracterization.T he com plaint alleges that M r.M cN erney
"m ade an extended statem ent regarding 'diversifying [B oeing's] labor pool and labor
relationship,'and m oving the 787 D ream liner w ork to South C arolina due to 'strikes
happening every three to four years in Puget Sound.'(C om plaint 6(a) (em phasis
added).)
H e did not say that at all.T he allegation is a sleight-of-hand in tw o obvious
respects,accom plished by the selective m isquotation of M r.M cN erney's actual
statem ents.First,M r.M cN erney w as not m aking an "extended statem ent" about w hy
B oeing selected C harleston.H e w as responding to a reporter's question about the
cost of potentially locating a new assem bly line in C harleston.A nd in fact,the
decision to locate the new final assem bly line in South C arolina had not even been
m ade at the tim e M r.M cN erney's statem ents w ere m ade.Second,M r.M cN erney
answ ered only the question as to com parative costs that w as asked.T hus,in the
passages you m isquote and m ischaracterize,he discussed the relative costs of a new
facility in a location other than Puget Sound,versus the potential costs associated
w ith "strikes happening every three to four years in Puget Sound." H e did not say,as
you allege through the com plaint's m isquotation,that B oeing selected C harleston
"due to" strikes.
A nd M r.M cN erney did not even rem otely suggest that w hat w ould later turn
out to be the decision to open a new line in C harleston w as in retaliation for such
strikes,as you w ould have to establish to obtain the rem edies you seek in your
com plaint.H e did not say,he did not suggest,and he did not im ply in any respect
that B oeing intended to punish union em ployees or that a decision to locate a new
facility other than in Puget Sound w ould or m ight be m ade to punish the union for
past strikes or because of their pow er to strike in the future.N either did he say,
suggest,or im ply that any existing union w ork w as being transferred to C harleston.
H is answ er cannot be cited in support of the legal theories in the com plaint,m uch less
the sw eeping statem ent you m ade to the N ew York Tim es about B oeing's "consistent
m essage" that B oeing and its executives sought to "punish" the C om pany's union
em ployees.
Finally,M r.M cN erney's answ er to a reporter's question w as not "posted on
B oeing's intranet w ebsite for all em ployees," m uch less posted for the purpose of
NLRB-FOIA-00007213
sending an illegal m essage under the N L R A ,as the com plaint incorrectly and
m isleadingly suggests.
N or do any of the other few statem ents you reference in your com plaint
w hich I attach to this letter rem otely suggest an intent to "punish" the C om pany's
unionized em ployees.Q uite the contrary: these statem ents show ,at m ost,that the
C om pany considered (am ong m ultiple other factors) the risk and potential costs of
future stnkes in deciding w here to locate its new final assem bly facility.T hose have
been deem ed perm issible considerations by an unbroken line of Suprem e C ourt and
N L R B precedent for 45 years.N ot only that,but,as you know ,B oeing reached out to
the IA M in an effort to secure a long-term agreem ent that w ould have resulted in
placing the second line in Puget Sound.A lthough those negotiations w ere not
successful,that effort alone defeats your w holly unsupported claim that B oeing
executives sent a "consistent m essage" that B oeing's decision w as intended to
"punish" the union for past strikes.
W hat you said to a national new spaper,that B oeing m ade a billion-dollar
decision to "punish" its em ployees,is a very serious indeed,intentionally
provocative allegation against B oeing's leaders.T hose leaders are deeply
com m itted to all of the m en and w om en w ho w ork for the C om pany,those
represented by unions and those w ho are not.Y our statem ent im plies that B oeing's
m ost senior executives acted out of personal spite and retribution tow ard its labor
union,as opposed to acting in the interests of the C om pany,the C om pany's
em ployees,and the C om pany's shareholders.Y ou have no support for that statem ent
w hatsoever.
Your Statem entThatB oeing's Statem ents A nd A ctions W ere So D em onstrably
U nlaw fulThatYou W ere C om pelled To F ile The C om plaint
Y ou also told the N ew York Tim es that,given the C om pany's so-called
"consistent m essage" that the C om pany intended to "punish" the union for its prior
strikes and its pow er to strike in the future,you had no choice but to issue a
com plaint.(Specifically,you said: "I can't not issue a com plaint in the face of such
evidence.") A m ong other reasons,that statem ent is puzzling,to say the least,in light
of the course of B oeing's discussions w ith you and your office concerning this m atter
over the past six m onths.In particular,it is hard to reconcile w ith w hat has been your
repeated statem ent that you did not believe this w as a m atter in w hich the N L R B
should be involved and that you w ould take no action on the m atter if B oeing agreed
that it w ould not lay off any 787 em ployees in Puget Sound during the duration of its
collective bargaining agreem entw ith the L A M .
W e of course understand that you reversed your position and abandoned the
agreem ent that you yourself sought from B oeing after your further discussions w ith
the com plainant.B ut the point is this: It is exceedingly difficult to understand how
you could have proposed and then agreed to such a resolution if,as you now say,you
believed that the statem ents and actions by B oeing and its executives w ere so
NLRB-FOIA-00007214
egregious that the law literally com pelled a com plaint by the N L R B .O f course,the
law com pelled no such thing.
Your Statem entThatThe com plaintD oes N otSeek To C lose C harleston
Finally,there is the issue of your articulation of the rem edy sought in this
com plaint.T he com plaint seeks an order directing B oeing to "have the [IA M ]
operate [B oeing's] second line of 787 D ream liner aircraft assem bly production in the
State of W ashington." N otw ithstanding that you are seeking this rem edy,your office
has been at pains since filing the com plaint to state publicly that this is not equivalent
to an order that B oeing "close its operations in South C arolina."

F act C heck,
available at w w w .n1r1).gp (post of A pril 26,2011).W e and the public w ould be
interested to hear your explanation as to w hy you believe thatto be the case.
B oeing's current plan is to produce a m axim um of ten 787s per m onth: seven in
Puget Sound,and three on the second line in C harleston.If the N L R B w ere to order
B oeing to produce out of Puget Sound the three 787s per m onth that are planned to be
assem bled in C harleston,that w ould of course require the production of all of the
C om pany's planned 787 production capacity in Puget Sound.T hat fact w as
explained repeatedly to you and your staff in our extended discussions before you
filed the com plaint.
** * * * **
B oeing intends to put this pattern of m isquotations and m ischaracterizations
befbre the A dm inistrative L aw Judge,and ultim ately,before the N ational L abor
R elations B oard itself in upcom ing proceedings,M r.Solom on.T o the extent they
reflect m isunderstandings of the facts on your part,w e w ould expect your prom pt
w ithdraw al of this com plaint.
Sincerely yours , _
7.1444,
A .. -
J. M ichaelL uttig
E xecutive V ice President
& G eneralC 'eunsel
T he B oeing C om pany
A ttachm ent
NLRB-FOIA-00007215
Statem ents R eferenced in the N L R B C om plaint
6(a) - Jam es M cN erney,2009 3rd Q uarter E arnings C all,O ctober 28.2009
...There w ould be execution challenges associated w ith thatchoice [of C harleston].
B utkeep in m ind thatw e've gota pretty good-sized operation dow n in C harleston today.
T he -- there w ould be som e duplication.W e w ould obviously w ork to m inim ize that.
B utI think having said allof that,diversifying our labor pooland labor relationship,has
som e benefits.I think the union LA M and the C om pany have had trouble figuring itout
betw een them selves over the lastfew contractdiscussions.
A nd I've gotto figure outa w ay to reduce thatrisk to the C om pany.A nd so som e of the
m odestinefficiencies,for exam ple,associated w ith a m ove to C harleston,are certainly
m ore than overcom e by strikes happening every -- every three or four years in Puget
Sound and the very negative financialim pactof the C om pany,our balance sheetw ould
be a lotstronger today had w e nothad a strike lastyear.O ur custom ers w ould be a lot
happier today,had w e nothad a strike lastyear.A nd the 787 program w ould be in better
shape had w e not.A nd so I don'tblam e -- I don'tblam e this totally on the union.W e
just haven't figured out a w ay,the m ix doesn't -- isn't w orking w ell,yet.So w e've either
gotto satisfactory satisfy ourselves the m ix isn'tdifferentor w e have to diversify our
labor base.
6(b) - "787 Second L ine Q uestions and A nsw ers," 10/28/09
Q 3:W as one site a higher costthan the other?
A : A ll things taken into account,this decision w ill provide econom ic advantages by
im proving our com petitiveness and reducing vulnerability to delivery disruptions due to a
hostof factors,from naturaldisasters to hom eland security issues and w ork stoppages.
W ere electing notto getinto how individualsites fared in specific areas of the
evaluation.
* * * * * * * *
Q 8:W e understand you w ere pushing the union for a no-strike agreem entand cam e
close to getting a 10-year deal.O bviously you didn'treach an agreem ent.W as thatthe
factor thattipped the decision?
A : It w as an im portant part of our discussion w ith the union,but it w asn't the only
factor in our decision.In the finalanalysis,this cam e dow n to ensuring our long-term
globalcom petitiveness and diversifying the com pany to protectagainstthe risk of
production disruptions thatcan occur for a variety of reasons,from naturaldisasters,to
hom eland security threats,to w ork stoppages.W hile w e didn'treach a long-term
agreem ent,w e feltour discussions w ith the IA M w ere productive and focused on the
NLRB-FOIA-00007216
rightthings -- globalcom petitiveness (including em erging com petitors),and w ays to
sustain a reliable,on-tim e flow of deliveries to our custom ers.W e look forw ard to
m oving forw ard w ith the IA M in a positive w ay to grow our business in an increasingly
com petitive m arket.
* * * * * * * *
Q 26:Y ou say thathaving a second line in C harleston reduces risk,butif the JA M goes
on strike in the PugetSound again they w illhaltyour production lines.W hatdoes a
second line in another state really do for you then?
A : G eographically diversifying final assem bly on the 787 w ill protect a portion of
deliveries againstdisruption from both naturaland m an-m ade events,including w ork
stoppages due to labor disputes.H aving the second line w illalso give us assurance and
flexibility in how w e introduce derivatives such as the 787-9.
6(c) - Seattle Tim es article,D ecem ber 7,2009
B oeing spokesm an Jim Proulx cited strikes in the PugetSound region as a m ajor factor in
the decision.W ith a second supplier for every part,B oeing potentially could continue
producing D ream liners in South C arolina even if the M achinists w enton strike here.
"R epeated labor disruptions have affected our perform ance in our custom ers'eyes,"
Proulx said."W e have to show our custom ers w e can be a reliable supplier to them ."
T he second production line "has to be able to go on regardless of w hat's happening over
here," he added.
* * * * * * * *
R ay C onner,vice president and general m anager of supply-chain m anagem ent and
operations,sent a m essage M onday inform ing allB oeing C om m ercialA irplanes
m anagers of the dual-sourcing decision.
"W e w illim m ediately begin identifying,selecting and contracting w ith suppliers to stand
up fully operationalcoproduction by 2012," C onner's m essage said.
Proulx said B oeing has notdeterm ined how m uch w ork w illbe replicated w ithin the
com pany in the new C harleston facility and how m uch m ay go to outside suppliers.
W hen B oeing broke ground on its C harleston assem bly line in N ovem ber,the com pany
disclosed extensive plans for other buildings atthe facility.A m ong these is a "fin and
rudder shop." w hich suggests the tailfin m ay be builtatB oeing C harleston.
B utProulx said,"It's too soon to say w hatw illgo w here."
NLRB-FOIA-00007217
H e said the replication of parts sourcing also w ould "accom m odate the ram p-up" required
to shiftto a planned rolloutof 10 planes a m onth by the end of 2013.
* * * * * * * *
C onner's m essage said the union knew this w as com ing.
"W e inform ed the (IA M ) of our plans to begin dualsourcing during the com pany/union
discussions preceding our decision to place the second 787 line in South C arolina,"
C onner's m essage to m anagers stated."W e rem ain com m itted to strengthening our
w orking relationship w ith the union."
* * * * * * * *
B oeing's Proulx said potentialexternalsuppliers are being assessed "based on
capabilities,based on their ability to produce high-quality com ponents and atthe best
value."
"W e'llreview supplier expertise,and w e'llensure thatthe rightlevelof training and
oversightis in place to m ake sure the perform ance standards are m et," he said.
C onner's m essage to m anagers em phasized the decision m eans duplication,not
replacem ent,of w ork done in this region.
"W e are notm oving any w ork thatB oeing em ployees are currently perform ing w e are
justadding additionalsources," C onner said.
6(d)
P ugetSound B usiness JournalA rticle,D ecem ber 8,2009
"D ual-sourcing and co-production w illallow us to m aintain production stability and be a
reliable supplier to our custom ers," he said in the m em o.
* * * * * * * *
B oeing spokesm an Jim Proulx said itw as "too early" to tellif the new production w illbe
contracted outor done by B oeing itself atthe new South C arolina site,or elsew here in the
country.
H e said this is notindicative of a w holesale m ovem entof existing production aw ay from
this region.
"T here w illbe no jobs lostas partof this m ove.T here are no plans to take this w ork
aw ay," he said.
NLRB-FOIA-00007218
6(e) -- Jim A lbaugh Interview w ith the Seattle Tim es, M arch 2,2010
W ellI think you can probably say thataboutallthe states in the country rightnow w ith
the econom y being w hatitis.B utagain,the overriding factor w as notthe business
clim ate and itw as notthe w ages w e're paying people today.Itw as thatw e can'tafford
to have a w ork stoppage every three years.W e can'tafford to continue the rate of
escalation of w ages as w e have in the past.Y ou know ,those are the overriding factors.
A nd m y bias w as to stay here butw e could notgetthose tw o issues done despite the best
efforts of the U nion and the bestefforts of the com pany.
NLRB-FOIA-00007219
http:N Seattletim es.nw source.com /cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?docum ent_id=2008717282& zsection_id=2003...
iTheSeatttenttes
F rid ay , F eb ru ary 6 , 2 0 0 9 - P ag e u p d ated at 0 9 0 1 P M
P erm ission to reprint or copy this article or photo, other than personaluse, m ust be obtained from T he S eattle
T im es. C all206-464-3113 or e-m ailresale@ seattletunes.com w ith your request.
Jet-p rod u ction cu ts p red icted
B y D om in ic G ates
S e a ttle T im e s a e ro sp a ce re p o rte r
Tw o aviation-industry billionaires had tough m essages for
B oeing w orkers at a reception before an airplane delivery
at B oeing F ield in S eattle F riday m orning.
S teven U dvar-H azy, chief executive of B oeing's largest
custom er, predicted that both B oeing and A irbus w ill
sharply reduce their output in the com ing m onths.
S te ve n U d va r-H a zy, w h o h e a d s IL F C , B o e in g 's la rg e st
cu sto m e r, is visitin g S e a ttle
U dvar-H azy said jet production could drop by a third in
the next 18 m onths. That w ould inevitably m ean layoffs of
blue-collar w orkers locally.
A nd R ichard B ranson, chairm an of the V irgin B lue group
of airlines, in tow n to accept a new 777 from B oeing that
w as originally due before C hristm as, described the
delivery delay caused by the M achinists strike as
"catastrophic."
B ranson said that if there's a risk of further strikes in the
future, he m ay not buy B oeing again.
JO H N LO K / TH E S E A TTLE TIM E S
V irg in G ro u p C h a irm a n R ich a rd B ra n so n , ce n te r, se e s h is
n e w B o e in g 7 7 7 -3 0 0 E R fo r th e first tim e F rid a y a t B o e in g
F ie ld H e w a s ta kin g d e live ry o f th e p la n e fo r h is a irlin e V
A u stra lia
U dvar-H azy, chairm an and C E O of InternationalLease
F inance C orp. (ILF C ), m akes huge deals w ith both the big jet m anufacturers and the airlines. ILF C ow ns the
w orld's largest w ide-body fleet and has 74 B oeing 787 D ream liners on order. H e's in a unique position to
assess the true state of the aviation business.
H is rem arks w ere m uch m ore pessim istic than recent cautious statem ents from B oeing executives, w ho have
declared production is com pletely solid at least through the end of this year.
U dvar-H azy doesn't think so.
"B y the fourth quarter, w e could definitely see som e adjustm ents," he said. "I'd like to see it sooner.
"It w ould not be surprising to us if there w ere 30 to 35 percent cuts over the next 18 m onths," he added.
H e predicted the tw o m ajor producers w illdeliver few er airplanes next year than in 2009.
U dvar-H azy also forecast a m assive decline in orders this year.
Ex. 7 - B o ein g , Ju ly 9, 2010 (19-C A -32431)
1 of 2
NLRB-FOIA-00007220
http ://seattletim es.n w so u rce.co m icg i-b in /P rin tS to ry .p l?d o cu m en t_ id = 2 0 0 8 7 1 7 2 8 2 & zsectio n _ id = 2 0 0 3 ...
"A irlines are focused on survival," he said. "O rdering new airplanes is not the flavor of the m onth."
In fact, he said, this year could see a net negative tally in the order books.
"It could happen that this w illbe the year w hen net cancellations and deferrals actually exceed the num ber of
new aircraft orders," U dvar-H azy said. "The elem ents are out there for that to happen."
The year has already begun w ith negative net orders for both A irbus and B oeing.
The E uropean plane m aker booked just four orders in January but lost 12 orders to cancellations, for a net
reduction of 8.
Through F eb. 3, B oeing had booked 18 new orders, but canceled 31 for a net decline of 13.
, A t an interview at the reception, B ranson expressed anger at how m uch the M achinist strike cost V A ustralia,
the new internationalunit of his V irgin B lue airline in A ustralia.
H is passengers w ere left stranded because V A ustralia's new 777-300E R , parked F riday on B oeing F ield,
w asn't available for the peak holiday-travelseason dow n under, B ranson said.
"It w as a horrible m ess that B oeing w as on strike. W e m essed up tens of thousands of passengers over
C hristm as," he said. "W e had to buy tickets on other airlines and scram ble to get seats w hich w eren't
available. The financialdam age in an industry w here the m argins are m inute is catastrophic."
B oeing contracts typically include a provision that it is not required to pay airlines com pensation for delays
due to strikes.
"W e're already thinking there's another lot of planes w e w ant to order. D o w e give it to B oeing or should w e
go to A irbus, w hich doesn't go on strike?" B ranson said. "W e have a choice. D o w e have to com e back to
B oeing? If there's a danger of ever having another strike, w e w on't."
A t this point, B ranson turned to U dvar-H azy and said U dvar-H azy had been m aking the sam e point at dinner
last night.
"Y ou can't dealw ith com panies that are unreliable," U dvar-H azy said.
A t the suggestion that B oeing could hardly guarantee no future strikes, B ranson said he w ould have to
exam ine w hether B oeing has "an unreliable m anagem ent/w ork-force situation."
"B ritain w as plagued by strikes 30 years ago," added B ranson, w ho is E nglish. "A m erica should have got over
this by now ."
D om inic G ates: (206) 464-2963 dgates@ seattletim es.com
C opyright 2009 The S eattle Tim es C om pany
2 of 2
NLRB-FOIA-00007221
B oein g's C ash C ow
A corporate
strategy's
im pact on
m id d le-class
A m erica
IN S T IT U T E F O R W IS C O N S IN 'S F U T U R E
p o lic y
re s e a rc h in
th e p u b lic in te r e s t
NLRB-FOIA-00007222
B oein g's C ash C ow
A corp orate strategy's im p act on
m id d le-class A m erica
Jack N orm an
A pril 2010
p o lic y r e s e a r c h
in
th e p u b lic in te r e s t
325 W est Silver Spring,G lendale,W I 53217.Phone 414-967-1682 .Fax 414-967-3630
E m ail iw f@ w isconsinsfuture.org W eb w w w .w isconsinsfuture.org
NLRB-FOIA-00007223
Introduction
It w as early spring, a splendid tim e to be in S avannah, G eorgia. T hat's w hy it had been chosen to host
the 2004 annual m eeting of the S tate G overnm ent A ffairs C ouncil, a blue-chip trade organization w hose
m em bers are the chief state-capitol lobbyists for A m erica's biggest corporations.
A m id S avannah's spring blossom s, the content of the m eetings w as typical conference fare. O ne of the
w orkshops stood out, though, for as provocative title:Turning Y our S tate G overnm entR elations D epartm ent
from a M oney P itinto a C ash Cow.T he co-presenters w ere R obin S tone, then the form er vice president of T he
B oeing C om pany's state and local governm ent relations, and M ichael P ress, then national director of E rnst &
Y oung's B usiness Incentives P ractice.'
"C ash cow " m ay be a C E O 's favorite tw o-w ord phrase. It refers to a business operation that requires little
investm ent but steadily generates large am ounts of cash. C ash cow s are highly profitable. T he w orkshop
focused on how a com pany can leverage its influence w ith state and local leaders to force them to give the
firm large "incentives" to locate a new operation there or expand an existing one.
"Incentives" is the econom ic developm ent euphem ism for w hen governm ents provide financial help to a
com pany, from tax exem ptions to free training for em ployees, from free airport expansion to low -cost loans.
T he presentation cited five m ultinational firm s as incentive success stories, starting w ith E rnst & Y oung - the
accounting and consulting giant - and B oeing, the em ployer or form er em ployer of both presenters.
T his report exam ines how B oeing has im plem ented this 'cash cow 'philosophy of state and local
governm ent relations. It w ill show how doing so drives dow n the quality of life for A m erica's m iddle-class
w orking fam ilies.
B oeing - follow ing the pattern set out in the S avannah 'cash cow 'presentation - dem ands that state and
local governm ents help w ith the com pany's "hard costs," such as taxes. It dem ands governm ent help w ith
"hum an resource costs,"from w age rebates and free help in hiring and training em ployees to law s restricting
union organizing. It dem ands governm ent help w ith "soft costs" such as financing and sew ers and roads.
It backs up these dem ands by using its size, its insider connections, its skill in m anipulating public opinion
and ultim ately its threat to abandon the com m unity.
B oeing relentlessly m ilks revenue from state and local governm ents w hile forcing large public spending
on infrastructure. It holds dow n em ployee w ages - further m inim izing local tax revenue - at a tim e w hen
governm ents at all levels are in desperate financial condition, slashing services to try to balance budgets.
A ll this m atters because B oeing is so big and so influential, across the U nited S tates and around the
globe. It is the largest aerospace com pany in the w orld. It is the m ost successful export firm in A m erica. It
designs and builds aircraft and spacecraft that are potent expressions of progress and m odernity. Its senior
m anagem ent includes form er high-ranking governm ent officials both D em ocratic and R epublican. L egions
of S enators, C ongressm en, cabinet officials and state and local leaders faithfully enact its interests.
B oeing is on the eve of receiving an im portant verdict from the W orld T rade O rganization (W T O ), the
B russels-based institution that is the court-of-last-resort for international trade disputes. B oeing and its
E uropean com petitor in com m ercial aircraft, A irbus, have been fighting for a decade over each other's use
of governm ent incentives. E ach claim s the other's incentives violate international trade law .
In M arch 2010, the W T O ruled that A irbus w as receiving illegal subsidies. T he verdict against B oeing is
expected this spring or sum m er. T he issue is highly technical and the proceedings are secret. B ut w hatever
the W T O verdict against B oeing, from any com m on sense point of view , w hen it com es to seducing
com m unities into being its financial patron, B oeing is guilty.
NLRB-FOIA-00007224
T he global aircraft w ars and the governm ent subsidies that fuel them are im portant because they are
establishing a new pattern for com petition in high-tech industries. In the U nited S tates, w e are accustom ed
to the econom ic developm ent 'w ar betw een the states; a race to the bottom w ith states outdoing each
other to curry favor w ith m obile corporations dangling job possibilities.
B oeing and A irbus have taken the incentives gam e global. It is no longer a m atter of W ashington state
com peting against S outh C arolina and K ansas and A labam a. In B oeing versus A irbus, it m eans also
com peting w ith incentive deals in B rem en, L ow er S axony and H am burg, F lintshire, C adiz and S evilla, A ichi,
A pulia, H aute G aronne.
E conom ic developm ent in the 21" century is not just a w ar betw een the states but a w ar am ong the states
of A m erica, the federal states of G erm any, the counties of B ritain, the provinces of S pain, the prefectures of
Japan, the regions of Italy, the departm ents of F rance. B ut it is still a race to the bottom .
T he B oeing story is a case study of w hat the W allStreetJournalrecently called the new "global tax
com petition."'It is depleting public resources everyw here, even as the dem ands for public structures and
services soar.
B oeing sees itself as a tem plate for a new kind of global corporation. "B reakthrough innovation is w hat w e
do," proclaim s C hairm an and C hief E xecutive W . Jam es M cN erney, Jr., as the com pany's latest m otto.'
B ut this tem plate is horribly flaw ed. In the long run, B oeing's dem ands are a recipe for econom ic disaster
and the deconstruction of A m erica's m iddle class.
P art O ne: W hat B oeing W ants
T he'cash cow 'presentation in S avannah divided incentives into three categories: hard costs, hum an
resource costs and soft costs. F or this report, w e'll sum m arize these in the follow ing term s:
H ard costs: A dem and for m axim um breaks on all incom e, property and sales taxes;
H um an resource costs: A dem and both for governm ent assistance but m ore im portantly for a
subm issive w ork force, a non-union em ployee base eager to w ork for reduced w ages;
S oft costs: A dem and for a high level of infrastructure, from specially-built roads and harbors
and airfields, to quality schools and colleges w ith B oeing-tailored aerospace program s, to an
overall quality of life that attracts em ployees.
A .H ard costs - m axim um tax breaks
T here is no large com pany in A m erica better at avoiding taxes than B oeing. T he title of the S avannah
presentation, Turning YourState G overnm entR elations D epartm entfrom a M oney Pitinto a C ash C ow , is a
straightforw ard description of the com pany's view that a prim ary role of governm ent is to provide m oney
for B oeing.
E xam ples are easy to com e by. F or exam ple:
B oeing developed its operations in W ichita, K ansas, by loaning itself several billion dollars,
funneling the cash through a city program to avoid paying property and sales taxes!'
NLRB-FOIA-00007225
B oeing built an assem bly plant in N orth C harleston, S outh C arolina, by extracting a 63%
discount on its property tax from the county - plus reim bursem ent for half of the rem aining
taxes it did agree to pay. S om e of the tax breaks m ay last beyond 2060. 5
B oeing agreed to assem ble a new product in the S eattle area, after W ashington state
prom ised it over three billion dollars - $3,000,000,000 - in tax breaks, just after the state cut
the com pany's unem ploym ent and w orker com pensation taxes, built B oeing a huge addition
to the port of S eattle and prom ised a four-billion dollar road project to m eet the firm 's traffic
needs.6
B oeing rented headquarters office space in C hicago, Illinois, after obtaining $60 m illion w orth
of state and local tax breaks, then engineering a m iddle-of-the-night prom ise by C hicago's
m ayor to give the current tenant one m illion dollars of city m oney as an 'encouragem ent'to
vacate and m ake room for B oeing.'
T he S avannah presentation listed fifteen different kinds of incentives com panies can dem and. F or B oeing,
this is no m ere'w ish list'but is instead a list of accom plishm ents. B oeing has obtained every one of the
fifteen benefits in one or m ore states, save possibly a w aiver of perm it fees. E xam ples include:
Incom e tax credits in W ashington state, S outh C arolina, Illinois and M issouri;
S ales tax exem ptions or refunds in W ashington, K ansas and S outh C arolina;
P roperty tax abatem ents in W ashington, K ansas, Illinois and S outh C arolina;
Infrastructure grants in W ashington, Illinois and S outh C arolina;
F ree or discounted land and buildings in Illinois and S outh C arolina;
W age rebates and job tax credits in Illinois, S outh C arolina and P ennsylvania;
T raining grants in S outh C arolina and M issouri;
T argeted em ploym ent credits in S outh C arolina;
H iring assistance in W ashington;
L ow -cost capital financing in K ansas, Illinois and South C arolina;
U tility discounts in W ashington and S outh C arolina;
W aiver of perm it fees has not been docum ented;
B u t ex p ed ited p erm its h as, w ith W ash in g to n 's p ro m ise to g iv e B o ein g 's p erm it ap p licatio n s
"priority status over all other projects" and C hicago granting B oeing an exem ption to a
prohibition on corporate logos on top of buildings;
E nvironm ental incentives in C alifornia;
R esearch and developm ent credits from the U .S . governm ent.
B oeing's prow ess at obtaining tax breaks is w ell-docum ented by num erous studies of corporate tax
avoidance. F or exam ple:
B oeing's federal incom e tax during 2001-2003 w as negative 18.8% , the fourth low est rate
am ong profitable F ortune 500 com panies, according to C itizens for T ax Justice and the
Institute on T axation and E conom ic P olicy, nonprofit research groups. T his m eans it received
m ore in federal tax breaks than it paid. B oeing got $3.06 billion in federal tax breaks over the
period w hile reducing its total capital investm ents by 65% .8
NLRB-FOIA-00007226

B oeing's state corporate incom e taxes during the sam e three years w ere also negative,
m eaning that the com pany booked a net inflow of $41 m illion in state incom e taxes w hile
accum ulating profits of $5.6 billion. B oeing's effective state incom e tax rate of negative 0.7%
w as fifth low est am ong the 252 com panies in the F ortune 500 that disclosed state incom e tax
paym ents, according to the sam e tw o nonprofit research groups.'
B oeing had the second largest reduction in effective state tax rates during the period
from 1997-1999 through 2004-2006. B oeing cut its effective state incom e tax rates by 4.2
percentage points, according to a report in State Tax N otes.1
B oeing had 38 corporate subsidiaries headquartered in tax-avoidance jurisdictions, including
B erm uda, C aym an Islands, G ibraltar, H ong K ong, Ireland, N etherlands A ntilles, S ingapore and
the U .S. V irgin Islands, according to the U .S. G overnm ent A ccountability O ffice (G A O ). T he
G A O looked at the 100 largest publicly traded U .S . corporations and found only fifteen firm s
- m ostly financial institutions and oil firm s - w ith m ore tax haven subsidiaries than B oeing."
B oeing's effective federal incom e tax rate during 2002-2006 w as only 0.7% . T his w as third
low est am ong the corporations in S tandard & P oor's 500 Index, according to B usinessW eek
m agazine in 2007."
B oeing's effective federal incom e tax rate during 2005-2008 w as 3.2% , ninth low est in the
S & P 500. B oeing w as by far the m ost profitable com pany am ong the tw enty-five low est
taxpayers."
A nd in 2009, the m ost recent full year, B oeing reported a negative federal incom e tax, getting
a net $132 m illion in paym ent from the federal governm ent despite pre-tax profits in the U .S .
of $1.6 billion. T he year before, 2008, B oeing paid only $44 m illion in federal incom e tax on
U .S. profits of $3.8 billion, an effective rate of less than 1% . 14
N one of this is because B oeing failed to earn a profit. Its last m oney-losing year w as 1997, and it w as
profitable throughout both recessions of the last decade.
B oeing w ill pursue extrem e strategies in its efforts to avoid taxes. In 2006, for exam ple, the firm paid a $615
m illion fine to the federal governm ent for tw o m ajor ethical violations. T he fine allow ed the com pany to
avoid crim inal charges for stealing secret docum ents from a com petitor and for illegally recruiting a top A ir
F o rce p ro cu rem en t o fficial w h o w as o v erseein g B o ein g co n tracts.
T he m isdeeds w ere significant, as the size of the fine suggests. In addition, B oeing w ent so far as to argue
that the paym ent fell in a tax loophole that allow ed it to take a tax deduction for the fine. T his w ould enable
it to recoup a sizable portion of the paym ent, perhaps m ore than a third of it. It w asn't until strong public
criticism from C ongress - expressed in letters to the Justice D epartm ent - that B oeing decided not to
claim the deduction. C ritics included R epublican S enators C huck G rassley of Iow a, chairm an of the S enate
F inance C om m ittee; John W arner of V irginia, chairm an of the A rm ed S ervices C om m ittee; and John M cC ain
of A rizona."
'
W ar B etw een the States
O ne w ay B oeing w ins lucrative tax concessions is by forcing a public contest am ong states for a new
B oeing investm ent. B oeing has been at the center of three of the m ost celebrated cases of site-location
com petition in recent U .S . history: the location of the first assem bly line for its new 787 D ream liner
passenger airplane; the re-location of its corporate headquarters aw ay from S eattle; and the location of the
second 787 assem bly line. A ll three w ere high-profile national cam paigns, w ith publicity in national, local
and trade new spapers pressuring officials in m any places to create tax-break packages larger than had ever
been proposed in those states.
NLRB-FOIA-00007227
South C arolina
In the m ost recent case - in w hich details are still em erging - B oeing received about one billion dollars in
tax incentives to select N orth C harleston, S outh C arolina, as the site of its second 787 assem bly line. S outh
C arolina had not landed the first 787 assem bly line - w hich w ent to the S eattle area - but w as selected as a
m ajor subassem bly site.
D etails of S outh C arolina's bid for the second assem bly line began em erging last O ctober, w hen the state
legislature w ent to w ork on an incentives deal. B oeing's decision to build there cam e later that m onth, after
the passage of an incentive package. A t the tim e, no one w as sure about the details of w hat B oeing w ould
receive nor the total value of the package, despite legislative action. A s late as January 2010, the C harleston
Postand C ourier reported that "m onths after celebrating the groundbreaking for a m assive jet assem bly
facility in N orth C harleston, state officials credited w ith luring B oeing to the L ow country say they still don't
know w hat all the incentives offered to the aircraft giant are w orth."
T he price tag didn't seem to m atter, though initial estim ates pegged the ultim ate value of state and local
tax breaks at about $450 m illion, by far the largest ever given in the state. L ater, state officials w ho had
trum peted the $450 m illion value backed off, w ith com m ents such as, "I don't know w here the $450 m illion
(figure) cam e from ." A s the Postand C ourier noted, "O f the 163 state and county officials w ho voted on the
deal, it w as difficult to find a single person w ho claim s to know w hat incentives w ere actually w orthf
T hrough its research - difficult because both governm ent officials and B oeing tried hard to avoid releasing
details - the new spaper concluded in January that "the incentive package prom ised to B oeing is w orth
m ore than $900 m illion, at least double the highest estim ate first circulated by state officials
7O ne of
the reporting team that com piled the estim ate later told the S eattle Tim es,"T hese are low ball estim ates,
counting only the incentives w e could put a reasonably firm value on...I w ould expect the (final) value is
w ell above $1 billion."
T he package of tax incentives includes at least the follow ing:
P roperty tax breaks in C harleston C ounty w orth at least $360 m illion over thirty years.
B oeing's new factory w ould pay property taxes of 4% rather than the usual 10.5% on the
assessed value, and half of the property taxes the com pany w ould pay w ould be rebated
back to the firm for fifteen years;
U p-front m oney to B oeing through a state-issued bond of $270 m illion, w hich w ould require
about $399 m illion in total including interest paym ents (all paid by the state);
T en-year property tax exem ptions on the tw o specially-designed aircraft B oeing uses to
transport large aircraft subassem blies. E ach plane is valued at about $250 m illion and the tax
exem ption at m ore than $100 m illion.
T raining costs of $33 m illion, paid by the state;
A grant of $5 m illion to help B oeing pay for site preparation;
Job tax credits, up to $12,500 per w orker, to offset state incom e taxes;
A $150,000 study by the C ounty of traffic needs around the airport;
A nd $100,000 as a utility tax credit to help B oeing w ith road and utility construction
expenses.
NLRB-FOIA-00007228
T his is the package agreed to in order to secure B oeing's investm ent. It does not include other costs
required by the deal. F or exam ple, tw o new m ajor road construction projects, aim ed at alleviating traffic
congestion around the airport and B oeing's new plant, are to cost an estim ated $155 m illion.' A nd the state
approved a $3.1 m illion program to train B oeing w orkers, in the S outh C arolina T echnical C ollege S ystem .
T he approval, in F ebruary 2010, w as accom plished using a special legal provision "last used in fiscal year
1994-957 said a spokesw om an for the T echnical C ollege S ystem . 2
Illinois
B oeing w as founded in S eattle in 1916 and for the rest of the tw entieth century it located its corporate
headquarters and the m ajority of its w orkforce there. It w as the m ost significant private em ployer in the
state. B ut in 2001, B oeing decided to m ove its headquarters to another city in order to separate its corporate
office from production and engineering facilities. T he shocking announcem ent led to a short, intense battle
am ong C hicago, D enver and D allas/F t. W orth to land B oeing's headquarters.
C hicago w on the battle w ith m ore than $63 m illion w orth of incentives, dw arfing the packages from
D allas/F t. W orth and D enver, both estim ated in the range of $14 m illion to $18 m illion. C hicago incentives
included:
S tate tax breaks totaling $41 m illion, including:
C orporate incom e tax credits equal up to 60% of B oeing em ployees'personal incom e
taxes (in effect, B oeing w as allow ed to keep m ost of the state incom e tax it w ithheld
from em ployee paychecks);
S ales tax exem ptions;
G rants to cover half of B oeing's m oving expenses;
Job-training grants;
G rants for technology and capital im provem ents.
L ocal tax breaks am ounting to about $22 m illion, including:
L ocal property tax abatem ents of $16 m illion over 20 years (technically, a
reim bursem ent of 73% of all city and school property taxes);
R eim bursem ent of at least $4 m illion for taxes expected to be paid over 20 years to
C ook C ounty, the C hicago P ark D istrict, local com m unity colleges and the M etropolitan
W ater R eclam ation D istrict;
A $2 m illion energy grant;
Im provem ents to M idw ay A irport to accom m odate B oeing's fleet of executive aircraft;
A nd a rem arkable $1 m illion gift by the city to convince a tenant to vacate the space
B oeing w anted. A s recounted in Site Selection m agazine: "L ast-m inute troubles in
securing space alm ost capsized the deal.. .that spurred several all-night negotiating
sessions... In the w ee hours of M ay 10, the deal finally cam e together. C ity officials
agreed to fork over an additional $1 m illion to nudge R ohm & H aas [the tenant] out." 21
NLRB-FOIA-00007229
N ot quite enough? T he city also agreed to w aive a city ordinance prohibiting com pany logos on the top
of buildings.
T he irony is that m any observers believed that the package w as far in excess of w hat C hicago needed to
attract B oeing's headquarters. B oeing C hief A dm inistrative O ffice John W arner, w ho led the headquarters
search team , said afterw ard that tax incentives, w hile an attractive part of C hicago's bid, "is not a m ajor
factor:O f greater im portance, he said, w as a so-called "pro-business"attitude and "the capacity of state
and local leaders to w ork together to facilitate B oeing's m ove:"
A s a team from G ood Jobs F irst, a non-profit tracking econom ic developm ent projects, soon noted,
"F inancial incentives, it seem s, w ere less im portant in them selves than they w ere as a sign of that
pro-business attitude. T he cum ulative evidence strongly suggests that Illinois and C hicago overpaid for
th e B o ein g d ear"
W ashington
B oeing and S eattle have a long and m utually beneficial relationship. W ith its pioneering com m ercial and
m ilitary aircraft, B oeing w as the core of a regional econom y that grew to incubate M icrosoft, S tarbucks
and a host of other m ajor businesses. B oeing jobs "are the backbone of the m iddle class in m y county," said
S nohom ish C ounty E xecutive A aron R eardon.24 S nohom ish C ounty, including suburban S eattle, is hom e to
E verett, site of the first 787 assem bly line.
S eptem ber 11, 2001 changed m any things, including B oeing's plans for its upcom ing superfast new
passenger plane. In the w ake of the attack, airlines dem anded fuel efficiency rather than extra speed.
B oeing dropped plans for its S onic C ruiser and replaced it w ith the 7E 7 (E for efficiency), later renam ed
the 787.
In M arch 2003, B oeing announced an open com petition for a site to build the 787. F irst delivery w as
planned for 2008. T his launched one of the biggest site-selection contests in history.
W ashington state, w hich once took B oeing's presence for granted, w as nervous. It had just lost the
corporate headquarters to C hicago. B oeing executives had for several years been strongly and openly
criticizing the state's business clim ate, including everything from the level of w orkers com pensation taxes
to too m any delays on S eattle-area freew ays.
D espite a short tim e fram e bidding w as opened in M arch and closed in June tw enty-tw o states
subm itted proposals. B ids included $300 m illion in tax breaks in M ichigan, $543 m illion in N orth C arolina;
$500 m illion from K ansas, $350 m illion from T ulsa C ounty plus a secret state package in O klahom a; and
other sim ilar deals.25
D esperate to hold onto the new airplane, W ashington w as quick to act. In June, G ov. G ary L ocke signed
a $3.2 billion, tw enty-year package of tax breaks for B oeing. In addition, changes w ere m ade in w orkers
com pensation and unem ploym ent taxes, in the port, and a $4 billion roads program w as launched.
"If they'd w anted us to bulldoze M ount R ainier so their planes w ould take off easier, w e'd have done it," state
R epresentative H ans D unshee later told the Seattle Tim es.
N oted Tim es colum nist B rier D udley:"B oeing's engineering brilliance m ay only be surpassed by its lobbying
savvy:26
M any of the other 21 states bidding for the w ork expressed concern that they w ere invited to bid sim ply in
an effort to help B oeing drive a better deal w ith W ashington. A rkansas G ov. M ike H uckabee said, "O ne of the
things that w e don't know at this point is, is B oeing seriously shopping the national m arketplace for a plant,
NLRB-FOIA-00007230
or are they using this opportunity to really squeeze the state of W ashington for deeper incentives.""
T he econom ic developm ent director of P alm dale, C alifornia, said: "W hat I hear from people, including som e
of our elected officials, is this:'W e're still not 100 percent convinced that B oeing is not doing this just to get
W ashington to cough up m oney. T o go through a lot of brain dam age just to get B oeing a better deal in
W ashington is not som ething w e w ant to do."P alm dale subm itted a proposal anyw ay. 28
A nd in D ecem ber, B oeing announced that, indeed, W ashington w as the w inner. A s w ould happen later
in S outh C arolina, it took a barrage of freedom -of-inform ation dem ands before the full details of the
package w ere unveiled. W ashington's $3.2 billion incentive package, in addition to the changes in w orkers
com pensation and unem ploym ent, along w ith construction at the port and on the highw ays, included:
A 40% cut in B oeing's B usiness & O ccupation tax (a tax on receipts, w hat W ashington has
instead of a corporate incom e tax);
A further tax credit of 1.5% of all B oeing's preproduction developm ent expenses for any
aircraft;
$20 m illion in rebates for previously paid sales taxes on com puter hardw are and softw are;
E xem ption from sales tax on new purchases of com puter equipm ent and softw are;
E xem ption from sales tax on labor, m aterials and fixtures in the new assem bly line;
E xem ption from property taxes on the new plant, including its equipm ent;
E xem ption from leasehold taxes for B oeing facilities in the public port;
A nd a continuation of all tax incentives through June 30, 2024.
W ashington had w on the battle for assem bling the 787.
T he 787, m ade m ostly w ith com posite m aterials rather than m etals, is a big deal. T he com pany calls it
"the m ost im portant new airplane since the B oeing 707 at the daw n of the Jet A ge, half a century ago." 29
It quickly becam e the best-selling new airplane in history, w ith nearly 900 of the giant aircraft ordered by
airlines around the w orld even before the first test m odel had been built. Its sales book tallied over $120
billion in purchase orders.
W ithin a year of picking W ashington for its assem bly line, B oeing had begun new operations in S outh
C arolina, to serve as a subassem bly site for the 787. T he com pany w ould use a new system for building the
787. M ost of the w ork w ould be done in subassem bly plants rather than in B oeing's W ashington operations,
w ith partially com pleted airplanes shipped to W ashington for only the final piecing together. W hen
B oeing decided to put its second 787 assem bly line in S outh C arolina, it m eant that soon som e of the 787
production w ould never go through W ashington.
B .H um an resource costs - low -cost w ork force
T he second category of dem ands relates to hum an resource costs. In addition to w age rebates and job-creation
tax incentives,em ployee training grants,targeted em ploym ent credits and help w ith hiring,this includes an am ple
supply ofacceptable'w orkers.T he w ord "acceptable" sum m arizes a w illingness to w ork for less than m iddle-incom e
w ages,a resistance to labor unions and support for local political com pliance w ith com pany interests.
NLRB-FOIA-00007231
T his is easiest to see in the contrast betw een w orkforces in the S eattle area and the C harleston area. It is a
m ajor part of the reason w hy B oeing chose to put its second 787 assem bly line in C harleston rather than
S eattle. T he difference in w ages w as m ade explicit by the S eattle Tim es,w hich reported last O ctober on
som e of the conditions in the C harleston subassem bly plant.
T he new spaper reported that because C harleston didn't have enough skilled w orkers to do B oeing's
som ew hat challenging w ork, at least one-third of the em ployees there w ere free-lance m achinists hired
from across the U .S . and other countries. T hese tem porary w orkers w ere "experienced airplane m echanics
paid about $26 an hour, com pared w ith the $14 an hour for local em ployees:T he $26 w age, the
Tim es
notes, is the average B oeing w age for union m achinists in E verett, W ashington."
T he difference betw een $26 an hour and $14 an hour is exactly the difference betw een a m iddle-class job
and one that does not m easure up to that designation. T he higher rate translates into about $54,000 a year;
the low er rate to about $29,000.
C onsider these federal statistics on incom e distribution in A m erica, in w hich household incom es are divided
into five equal parts, from the low est-paid fifth to the highest-paid fifth. T he average incom e in the m iddle-
fifth in 2008 w as $50,132. T his w ould place the household of a $26/hour B oeing w orker (if he/she w ere the
sole w orker in the hom e) about 8% higher than the average for A m erica.
N ow step dow n one category, from the m iddle fifth to the second-low est fifth.T he average incom e w as
$29,517, according to the U S C ensus B ureau. T his is the equivalent of B oeing's $14/hour w orker.
B y dow ngrading its production w orkforce from a $26 w age to a $14 w age, B oeing drops its w orkers from
being in the m iddle incom e fifth to a low er bracket. In B oeing's future, today's m iddle fifth w ould disappear
into the low er bracket.
T he absence of unions in C harleston w as an im portant factor for B oeing. In S outh C arolina, 4.5% of w orkers
belong to unions, the 3'd low est rate in the nation. In W ashington, 20.2% of w orkers are unionized, the 4th
highest in the nation." S outh C arolina's law s are am ong the m ost union-hostile in the country. T his includes
a 'right-to-w ork'law so even in a unionized w orkplace, em ployees cannot be required to join a union.
T he contrast betw een W ashington and S outh C arolina goes m uch deeper than w ages and unions. T he
difference in quality of life can be seen in a variety of statistics. F or exam ple, S outh C arolina has the third
highest infant m ortality rate in the U .S . (9 per 1,000 births); W ashington has the third low est (5)" In the
proportion of adults w ith a college degree, S outh C arolina ranks 40th (24% ); W ashington is 12th (31% )." In
the proportion of children living in poverty, South C arolina ranks 11th (21.7% ); W ashington is 36th (14.3% ). 34
B oeing frequently blam ed its unions, especially the International A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace
W orkers, w hich -represents B oeing production w orkers in m any locations, for strikes and w age increases.
"T he overriding factor" in choosing S outh C arolina, said B oeing's Jim A lbaugh, C E O of the com pany's
C om m ercial A irplanes unit,"w as that w e can't afford to have a w ork stoppage every three years. A nd w e
can't afford to continue the rate of escalation of w ages.' 35
A lbaugh's com m ent about the rate of escalation of w ages" is a clear statem ent that the $26-an-hour,
m iddle-class w age of B oeing's S eattle-area production w orkers is not to be continued. E ven the slow grow th
that has characterized overall w age gains in recent years it too m uch for B oeing, A lbaugh says. T he point is
straightforw ard: B oeing w ill not continue to support m iddle-class w ages for the bulk of its em ployees.
W hy don't unions organize B oeing's S outh C arolina w orkers? T hey did. D uring the early stages of setting
up a w orldw ide production system to build the 787, B oeing gave a subassem bly contract to V ought
A ircraft Industries, a T exas-based com pany that w ould build 787 rear fuselage sections in N orth C harleston.
T he M achinists w on bargaining rights at the V ought N orth C harleston plant in 2007 and the next year
negotiated a contract that w as to run until N ovem ber 2011.
NLRB-FOIA-00007232
B ut by the m iddle of 2008, the entire 787 program w as w ay behind schedule. T he various S outh C arolina
operations, including the V ought plant, contributed to the delays, having "been plagued w ith startup
problem s, partly due to the inexperienced w ork force," said the S eattle Tim es.S o in stages B oeing bought
out various subassem bly plants in S outh C arolina it had been using as subcontractors.
In July 2009, B oeing com pleted its acquisition of the V ought S outh C arolina plant, w ith its unionized
w orkforce. T his w ould have brought C harleston's unionized w orkers into B oeing itself, a m ajor strategic
inroad for the M achinists'effort to bring unions to the area.
B ut on July 30, 2009, the sam e day the acquisition of V ought N orth C harleston w as announced, a
decertification petition w as filed w ith federal labor officials. In the S eptem ber election, the union w as
decertified. T he next m onth - free from a union presence in N orth C harleston - B oeing announced that
S outh C arolina had w on the com petition for siting the second 787 assem bly line.
T here w as no m istaking the m essage that w as heard across the nation. U nder the headline 'B oeing's S .C .
jobs a setback for unions," the W ashington Postquoted a labor expert as saying: "T his is the escape from
collective bargaining." 36
B oeing also had at one tim e a large num ber of M achinist-represented w orkers in its extensive operations in
the W ichita, K ansas area. B ut in recent years B oeing has divested itself of m ost of those operations, selling
off its unionized com m ercial aircraft facilities there to a new com pany it helped establish, S pirit A erospace.
In 2001, B oeing em ployed 16,700 people in K ansas. B y 2007, that had plunged to under 3,000. 37
The irony of job grow th prom ises
W hy do state and local governm ents give the incentives? O bviously, the answ er is jobs. T he only w ay to
im agine that the long-term tax breaks are w orthw hile is to assum e that their cost w ill be trum ped by the
value of the jobs B oeing brings to the com m unity. T he facts do not support such an optim istic view of how
B oeing operates.
F irst, B oeing itself is not in the business of creating jobs. Its strategy is just the opposite - w orldw ide global
outsourcing and - at m ost - a stable num ber of em ployees. A t the end of 1998, B oeing em ployed 231,260
people. T en years later that had dropped to 162,191. 38
In W ashington state, for exam ple, B oeing seriously overstated the em ploym ent im pact of its decision to
locate the first 787 assem bly line there. T he S eattle Tim es reported, "In 2003, state officials forecast that
the 787 w ould add 3,600 supplier jobs at existing B oeing subcontractors and at new suppliers draw n
to W ashington. B ut four years later, new suppliers have established just four m odest new D ream liner
m anufacturing operations em ploying around 200 people in W ashington, half of those jobs in unskilled
assem bly or distribution w ork." 39
T he new spaper quoted a form er B oeing executive - w ho left the com pany to w ork for the state on
econom ic developm ent issues - acknow ledging/'W e have failed m iserably at attracting new engineering
com panies. W e m issed out on the big stuff."
F urther, B oeing has long m aintained a tw o-tier w age structure, even in W ashington w here its ow n
em ployees are w ell paid. T he "flinty reality" of the aerospace industry, as the S eattle Tim es put it, "O utside
B oeing, the hours are long and the pay is hardly sky-high."'' In 2007, the new spaper analyzed w ages at
B oeing and an additional 160 com panies claim ing state tax breaks for aerospace. It found that w hile 93%
of B oeing's production w orkers earned at least $20 an hour, only 21% of non-B oeing w orkers earned that
m uch. N early half the non-B oeing w orkers earned less than $15 an hour, com pared w ith only 4% of B oeing's
w orkers. S im ilar discrepancies w ere found am ong engineers.
10
NLRB-FOIA-00007233
S o even in W ashington, w here the w ages of B oeing w orkers are solidly m iddle-class, once one steps beyond
B oeing itself, w age levels plum m et. T here is no reason to expect anything different in S outh C arolina,
especially w ith the absence of union pressure there. B ut in S outh C arolina, the supposedly higher w age
B oeing jobs them selves are only at the $16 range, equivalent to about $33,000 a year.
E ven those jobs - paying less than $30,000 annually - are likely to em erge in few er num bers than m any
B oeing boosters in S outh C arolina project. T his is because of the radically global approach to contracting
that B oeing is pushing to the lim it. U nlike older m anufacturing techniques, w here a large factory in
a com m unity spaw ned num erous nearby jobs w ith suppliers, B oeing's tw enty-first century sourcing
philosophy m eans that parts that are needed in its S outh C arolina factories can com e from literally
anyw here on the globe.
T hat's w hy the com pany has such high dem ands for the local infrastructure, such as ports, airports and
roads. It expects to bring in an enorm ous am ount of m aterial, rather than sourcing them locally. R ather than
building the airplane in one location, putting together sm aller com ponents from local and distant suppliers,
the 787 w as designed to have large subassem blies created in factories around the w orld. T hese large
com ponents are then transported to the final assem bly line - in W ashington or S outh C arolina - for a final
assem bly w hich requires m any few er w orkers and m uch less tim e than the traditional technique.
W ikipedia com piled a w ell-docum ented overview of how w idely distributed the new supplier system is
(or at least, w as intended to be). T he tail fin for the plane is m ade in W ashington. A ilerons and flaps com e
from A ustralia. W ings are m ade in Japan. H orizontal stabilizers are built in Italy; fuselage sections in S outh
C arolina, Japan and K ansas. P assenger doors are from F rance. C argo and other doors are built in S w eden.
F loor beam s are m ade in India and sent to subassem bly plants in Italy, Japan and the U .S . T he landing gear
is from F rance, using titanium from R ussia and brake parts from Italy.'" T w enty countries are reported to be
involved in the total production and assem bly procedure.
T he global pattern w as not restricted to the production part. E ven designing the new plane, the m ost
technically advanced part of the operation, w as shared w orldw ide to an unprecedented degree. A s B oeing
itself bragged:"T he program 's approach to the developm ent of the airplane has been as revolutionary as
the jetliner itself."42
T his new approach to outsourcing has not been an obvious success. T he plane has been plagued w ith
problem s from the beginning, forcing num erous delays. O riginally the plane w as to enter com m ercial
operation in 2008. B ut the first com m ercial airplane still has not been delivered, though it is now prom ised
for the fourth quarter of 2010. P roblem s w ith suppliers have been routinely blam ed for the constantly
delayed launch date for the new plane.
C learing up supplier issues is one reason B oeing bought the original facilities in S outh C arolina that w ere
supposed to be ow ned by independent suppliers. B oeing acknow ledged problem s w ith suppliers in various
countries, w ith the com pany sending its ow n em ployees around the w orld to help clear up the problem s.
In w ell-publicized com m ents in 2007, both B oeing C E O Jim M cN erney and B oeing V ice P resident M ike B air
confirm ed disappointm ent w ith the global sourcing strategy.
S till, this is unlikely to change the basic thrust of B oeing's com m itm ent to w orldw ide sourcing. T he com pany
m ay have taken it too far too quickly w ith the 787, but that is its desired path. "T he 787 defines the place w e
w ant to be [on outsourcing];'said an executive, especially w ith B oeing pressing its w orldw ide suppliers to
form their ow n local supply chains and infrastructure system s. "W e have to be global," he said. "It's a w hole
w orld full of people's talents and capabilities w e're bringing together to m ake this.""
It is also a w hole w orld full of untenable choices betw een reduced-w age w ork or no w ork at all.
11
NLRB-FOIA-00007234
C . S oftcosts - m axim izing B oeing-friendly infrastructure
F irst, B oeing dem ands huge tax breaks to reduce its hard costs. S econd, B oeing dem ands low w ages and
no unions, to reduce its hum an resource costs. T o com plete its package of dem ands, B oeing also requires
com m unities to provide expensive, high-quality infrastructure, to reduce its soft costs.
C ertainly a com pany building the biggest airplanes in the w orld is going to have m any infrastructure needs.
It requires a large w orkforce, w ith all that entails in term s of roads, schools and a w ide range of public
services. It requites huge pieces of equipm ent to be m oved in and out, putting m axim um stress on roads,
airports, railroads and ports.
B oeing prefers to pay for as little of it as possible. It dem ands that state and local governm ent bear the costs
of providing an environm ent fit for B oeing's needs. T he m ost explicit dem onstration of this occurred in its
m ultistate com petition to land the 787's first assem bly plant, w hich ultim ately w ent to W ashington state
w ith its $3 billion-plus package of tax breaks.
E arly in the site-location process, B oeing m ade public w hat it called a "S um m ary of 7E 7 site selection
criteria7 44T he item s on the list aren't surprising, given the scope of B oeing's project. B ut m any of the item s
on the list require m ajor spending by state and local governm ents. T he follow ing item s require substantial
investm ent by state and local governm ents, using taxpayer funds:
S uitable runw ays;
A port capable of around-the-clock operations;
C ontinuous availability of heavy traffic w ays;
P roxim ity to railw ays and interstate highw ays;
S upport services (fire, police, em ergency and m edical services);
T raining infrastructure w ith local agencies or governm ents;
A nd quality public schools.
O ther criteria require varying degrees of taxpayer spending, including the need for convenient and
affordable utilities (w ater, sew er, pow er, w aste and telecom m unications) and w hat B oeing calls
"transportation enhancem ents.'T he com pany w on the right to a veto on w hich contractors are hired to
w ork on infrastructure.
B oeing further expects that local governm ent w ould devote their ow n resources to finding out B oeing's
needs and m eeting them . Its agreem ent w ith W ashington in 2003 included not just the billions in tax breaks
but also the use of at least four governm ent em ployees w orking to m axim ize benefits to B oeing. A ll four are
to be paid by the state (or local governm ent) but "selected in consultation w ith B oeing:'4'T hese include:
A T ax C om m itm ent and Incentives C oordinator, w hose job includes not just overseeing the
agreed-upon tax breaks but also"apply[ing] for and pursue[ing] all grants for w hich B oeing
m ay b e elig ib le
A T ransportation Infrastructure C oordinator, to coordinate all B oeing needs regarding road,
rail, port and airport transportation;
A W orkforce D evelopm ent C oordinator, to coordinate all training and recruiting;
12
NLRB-FOIA-00007235
A nd a L arge C argo F reighter C oordinator, to coordinate issues relating to the developm ent
and operation of giant new cargo airplanes B oeing needed to m ove parts for the 787.
Part Tw o: H ow B oeing G ets W hat It W ants
H ow is B oeing able to extract such enorm ous tax packages?
F or starters, B oeing is a huge com pany. It is not a com pany that can consider m ajor new operations w ithout
draw ing attention. B oeing com ing to tow n is som ew hat like the proverbial large gorilla entering the room .
It's im possible not to notice.
B oeing is an aggressive com pany. A s the S avannah 'cash cow 'presentation stressed, its approach is to
"control publicity ... be proactive ... com m unicate progress to the elected officials and their constituents ...
involve elected officials in press announcem ents:"
B oeing's control over local governm ent is intricate. In W ashington, S outh C arolina and K ansas, for exam ple,
it has pushed for the creation of special degree program s in state institutions of higher education to m eet
their needs.
T he S avannah presentation w as filled w ith tips about how to court local officials in order to obtain tax
incentives. C hief am ong them w as the recognition that since the "public doesn't like 'corporate w elfare'the
com pany should be sure to use a "B ut forthrearT his is a threat that in the absence of large incentives, the
com pany w ill not invest in the area.
O ther recom m endations in the 'cash cow 'presentation include:
T he need for the firm to "C ontrol publicity" and "A void legislation if possible" (presum ably
because of potential public controversy);
T he need to "involve elected officials in press announcem ents!'T ax breaks are a "Q uid P ro
Q uo," the presentation noted, so one thing local officials get in exchange for low er taxes is
good publicity for bringing investm ent.
T he im portance of show ing gratitude. 'T hank everybody a zillion tim es,"the presentation
stressed, and offer to "conduct a 'lessons learned'session."
F inally,"B e m indful of the election & legislative cycle,"B e m indful of local turf battles; and
"D on't settle for 'off the shelf'but don't be greedy."
O ne im portant reason that B oeing know s how to deal w ith elected officials and other governm ent decision-
m akers is that so m any senior executives at the com pany are them selves form er high-ranking public
officials. O ne of the m ost striking facts about B oeing's executive group is the high proportion w ith previous
experience at senior levels in governm ent, both under D em ocratic and R epublican adm inistrations and
C ongresses.
B oeing's board of directors includes:
W illiam M . D aley, form er U .S. Secretary of C om m erce and C hairm an of A l G ore's 2000
presidential cam paign;
K enneth M . D uberstein, form er W hite H ouse C hief ofStaff;
13
NLRB-FOIA-00007236
E dm und P.G iam bastiani,Jr.,form er V ice C hairm an of the U .S.Joint C hiefs of Staff;
A nd Susan C .Schw ab,form er U .S.T rade R epresentative."
B oeing's m ost senior executives include these form er governm ent officials:
Senior V ice President Shephard W .H ill,form er chief of staff and legislative affairs for
C ongressm an B ill C happell;
Senior V ice President T im othy K eating,form er special assistant to the President and W hite
H ouse staff director for legislative affairs;
A nd Senior V ice President and G eneral C ounsel J.M ichael L uttig,form er judge on the U .S.
C ourt of A ppeals for the Fourth C ircuit,form er assistant A ttorney G eneral and counsel to the
A ttorney G eneral.
M anagem ent ranks below these senior levels are full of form er ranking federal officials.T he U .S.G A O
reported in 2008 that 15 B oeing em ployees w ere form er "senior" D epartm ent of D efense officials and 76
other B oeing m anagers had been involved in D efense D epartm ent procurem ent m atters.
47T he federal jobs
form erly held by B oeing m anagers include:"
A ssistant Secretary to the D epartm ent of V eterans A ffairs;
C om m unications D irector for the H ouse A rm ed Services C om m ittee;
D eputy A ssistant Secretary of C om m erce;
D eputy A ssistant to the U .S.T rade R epresentative;
M ajority Staff D irector of Senate A ppropriations Subcom m ittees
D eputy Secretary of D efense;
Staff D irector for the H ouse A rm ed Services C om m ittee;
P olicy A dvisor and C ounsel to the H ouse M inority L eader;
S taff D irector of the H ouse A rm ed S ervices C om m ittee;
D irector of the Standard of C onduct O ffice at the D epartm ent of D efense;
A ssistant A dm inistrator for Policy at the Federal A viation A dm inistration;
Staff D irector of the H ouse A ppropriations Subcom m ittee on D efense;
C hief of R egulation/C ertification at the Federal A viation A dm inistration;
D eputy G eneral C ounsel at the D epartm ent of T ransportation;
A ssociate C ounsel in the E xecutive O ffice of the President;
A ssistant Secretary of State;
A nd D eputy W hite H ouse Press Secretary.
14
NLRB-FOIA-00007237
B oeing is also one of the nation's largest corporate lobbyists and donors to political cam paigns. A t the
federal level, B oeing w as the 15th m ost active lobbyist in the U .S . in 2009, spending $17 m illion. In just the
current tw o-year election cycle, it has donated to cam paigns for 295 current m em bers of the U .S . H ouse of
R epresentatives (68% of m em bers) and for 35 current S enators (35% ). D em ocratic recipients outnum ber
R epublicans 204 to 126.49
B oeing's close ties w ith politicians hold true at the state level as w ell as the federal. In the 2007-2008
election cycle (the m ost recent for w hich data are available), B oeing m ade cam paign contributions to
an astounding 504 candidates in 18 states: A labam a, A rizona, C alifornia, F lorida, G eorgia, Illinois, K ansas,
M issouri, M ontana, N evada, N ew M exico, N orth C arolina, O klahom a, Pennsylvania, T exas, U tah, V irginia
and W ashington. T he offices B oeing m ade donations to include not just state legislators (both houses) but
also governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, treasurer, com ptroller, secretary of state, insurance
com m issioner, com m issioner of public lands, auditor and state board of education. Its donations w ere split
alm ost evenly betw een D em ocrats and R epublicans.50
In W ashington state, the com pany hired B ob W att, form er deputy m ayor of S eattle, and F red K iga, form er
chief of staff to the governor. W hen B oeing decided to enter S outh C arolina, the nam es of the local law yers
and lobbyists it hired "read like a proverbial w ho's w ho of P alm etto S tate pow er brokers!"
B oeing, in other w ords, is a com pany full of experience in how governm ent w orks and how best to take
advantage of opportunities for governm ent contracts and governm ent tax breaks. S uch close ties can lead
to conflicts of interest, and B oeing has had a full share of these. In 2006, B oeing w as fined $615 m illion and
had a $20 billion contract cancelled because of conflicts of interest involving an A ir F orce procurem ent
officer, D arleen D ruyun, and the com pany. D ruyun negotiated jobs for herself, her daughter and her son-in-
law w hile negotiating the contract w ith B oeing. B oth D ruyun and a B oeing official served prison tim e.
In S outh C arolina, three lobbyists hired by B oeing w ere at the sam e tim e also being paid to w ork for the
S outh C arolina R esearch A uthority, the state's prem ier econom ic developm ent agency.
In W ashington, the sam e firm that served as B oeing's auditor, D eloitte C onsulting, also received $715,000
from state governm ent to help get B oeing to choose W ashington for the first 787 assem bly line. T ax scholar
D avid B runori characterized the deal this w ay:"D eloitte gets m oney from W ashington to get B oeing to build
in the state. D eloitte gets m oney from B oeing to persuade W ashington to give it m oney to build. B oeing
gets m oney from W ashington. W ashington pays B oeing and D eloitte. T here m ight be m ore egregious
conflicts of interest out there, but there m ight not be." 52
In C alifornia, B oeing recently received a $16 m illion contract for environm ental m onitoring at the sam e site
w here it had been fined for polluting a creak w ith chrom ium , dioxin, lead and m ercury."
B oeing is the second m ost-cited com pany in the F ederal C ontractor M isconduct D atabase, w ith 36 instances
ranging from im proper invoicing to gender discrim ination, from overbilling to sexual harassm ent, and from
arm s control violations to building defective helicopters. 54
P art Three: W hat Is the Im pact of B oeing's M ethod?
B oeing w ants its m any dem ands m et im m ediately. B ut the only w ay states and com m unities can afford the
expensive infrastructure B oeing dem ands, w hile at the sam e tim e giving m ajor tax breaks, is by borrow ing
from the future.
15
NLRB-FOIA-00007238
In W ashington state, the tax incentives given B oeing in 2003 w ill continue until July 1, 2024. T he W ashington
R esearch C ouncil, a non-partisan research organization, calculated that the value of the tax incentives
w ould grow each year until then, increasing from about $50 m illion in F iscal Y ear 2007 to $144 m illion in
F Y 2010 and $291 m illion in F Y 2023."
In S outh C arolina, the incentives given in 2009 last various tim e periods. T he largest property tax breaks
extend for 30 years. O thers incentives are to last ten years and fifteen years. A nd if certain conditions are
m et, "som e of the property tax breaks could rem ain in force beyond 2060;'the C harleston P ost and C ourier
reported.
In K ansas, B oeing continues to have a property tax abatem ent and sales tax exem ption based on its use
of Industrial R evenue B onds (IR B s). T he bonds first appeared on B oeing's 10-K report for 2004 and the
incentives are in place for ten years.
A n unusual feature of these K ansas bonds is that B oeing borrow ed the m oney even though it had no need
to. T hat's clear from the fact that B oeing itself bought the bonds, thereby providing the very cash that
B oeing itself w as borrow ing. A s B oeing's 10-K states, "W e have also purchased the IR B s and therefore are the
bondholders as w ell as the borrow er/lessee of the property purchased w ith the IR B proceeds!
W hy did B oeing loan m oney to itself? B ecause issuing an IR B through the city of W ichita enabled B oeing
to w in a long-term property tax abatem ent and sales tax exem ption on everything connected w ith
the property it borrow ed m oney to build. B oeing reported $2.9 billion w orth of K ansas IR B s in 2004, an
enorm ous property value on w hich to be tax-exem pt. B oeing also reported a sm all but sim ilar arrangem ent
in G eorgia, in w hich it received a partial property tax abatem ent after being the purchaser of IR B bonds
w hich provided funding for itself.
A re these states and com m unities in strong enough financial condition to m anage w hile giving B oeing
large tax breaks? N o. E specially w ith the recession battering state and local budgets across the country,
the com m unities in w hich B oeing is receiving large tax breaks are struggling to m aintain services w hile
balancing their budgets.
C onsider S outh C arolina, w here the tax incentives have just begun. T he state is running an anticipated
deficit of $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2010, or 20% of its total budget, and $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2011,
according to the W ashington, D .C .-based C enter on B udget and P olicy P riorities (C B P P ). Its projected deficit
for fiscal year 2011 is $1.3 billion."
T he state is dealing w ith these deficits in the custom ary w ay: by slashing program s. S outh C arolina has
already cut program s in public health, education at all levels from pre-school through K -12 to higher
education, w orkforce developm ent (except for B oeing) and service for the elderly and those w ith
disabilities. T he governor is further proposing to cap the state's children's health insurance package.
57
O n top of that, changes in federal health care law w ill m ean an additional half m illion people eligible for
the state's M edicaid program . A state official determ ined that"it w ill cost $914 m illion in state funds over
a decade to cover them !" C bincidentally, that's just about the am ount of tax breaks going to B oeing over
that sam e tim e period.
S im ilar stories can be told about W ashington and K ansas. In W ashington, the expected deficit for fiscal year
2010 is $6.2 billion, or 27% of the general fund budget. In K ansas, the expected deficit is $1.8 billion, or 30%
of the budget. T hese deficits are expected to run w ell into the future. T o deal w ith the troubled budgets,
W ashington has already cut program s in public health, K -12, pre-school, and higher education, w orkforce
developm ent (except for B oeing) and service for the elderly and those w ith disabilities. K ansas has m ade
sim ilar cuts, though so far it has exem pted public health program s. A recent headline noted, "K ansas'm odel
parole program collapses w ith state budget cuts!"
16
NLRB-FOIA-00007239
In K ansas, the experience w ith tax breaks for B oeing and other firm s has led to som e rethinking of the
practice of tax giveaw ays. In 2008, the L egislature's audit bureau conducted a P erform ance A udit R eport
on the state's econom ic developm ent strategies. Its conclusion: "M ost review s of econom ic developm ent
assistance find few results are achieved - a them e that audits in K ansas and other states com m only find, as
w eir" P roblem s include:
P rom ised jobs w eren't created;
R eturn on investm ent is low or negative;
A nd incentives offered w eren't a determ ining factor in site selection.
T he dilem m a, auditors noted, is that although "incentives don't have a significant im pact on econom ic
grow th.. .states have to continue offering such incentives to rem ain com petitive." It w ent on to say: "B ecause
so m any states offer econom ic developm ent assistance, m any business officials have com e to view these
incentives as an entitlem ent - they expect to be offered an incentive package."
B ut there is a severe price paid for these incentives, auditors noted: "O ne dow nside to offering public
assistance to so m any businesses is that it m ay cause less state funding to [be] available for public services:'
T hese are the very public services that provide the fram ew ork for a strong m iddle class and a stable
com m unity.
The globaleconom ic developm entw ars
W hile pressing state and local governm ents from coast to coast for m ajor tax concessions, B oeing has
also w aged an international legal battle w ith the help of S enators, C ongressm en and the U S governm ent,
accusing its com petitor A irbus w ith - of all things - relying too heavily on governm ent assistance. In
M arch 2010, B oeing w on the latest round at the W orld T rade O rganization (W T O ), w ith a ruling that about
$20 billion in E uropean governm ent aid to A irbus constituted an illegal export subsidy. 6'
T he case is far from over. T he E uropeans are expected to appeal. A irbus'counterclaim about B oeing's
incentives is expected to be decided in com ing m onths. E ven the consequences of guilty verdicts are not
clear. T hey could include anything from repaym ents of incentives to prohibitions against future incentives
to the establishm ent of im port tariffs to an international trade w ar.
B ut the sparse public docum entation of the cases m akes it abundantly clear that the tax incentives urged at
the S avannah conference are w orldw ide in scope. Just as the A irbus com plaint against B oeing cites the tax
breaks in W ashington, K ansas and Illinois (S outh C arolina had not yet happened) - as w ell as federal aid -
th e B o ein g co m p lain t ag ain st A irb u s cites eco n o m ic d ev elo p m en t in cen tiv es g iv en to A irb u s in a n u m b er o f
E u ro p ean countries, including F rance, G erm any, S pain, Italy and the U nited K ingdom ." B oeing has its ow n
econom ic developm ent incentives in Italy for factories that supply the 787. A nd Japan's national and local
governm ents have provided at least $2 billion w orth of help to the three Japanese firm s doing contract
w ork on the 787."
T he problem is that the greater the com petition for the kind of w ork involved in technologically advanced
design and production, the sw ifter the race to the bottom . W hen com panies like B oeing conduct
com petitions to locate a new facility, new kinds of incentives are invented and old kinds of incentives are
expanded.
W hen local governm ents here and abroad are forced to give up tax revenues to attract a new factory, w hen
w orkers are forced to accept reduced w ages, w hen com m unities m ust build expensive roads and ports and
high-quality educational program s, som ething m ust suffer. W hat suffers is the ability of com m unities to
m aintain a durable m iddle class and the system s needed for ongoing econom ic grow th.
17
NLRB-FOIA-00007240
S um m ary and C onclusion
B oeing has positioned itself to be a m odel for the global corporation of the 21's century. T his m odel
pressures state and local governm ents to reduce taxes and provide lavish financial incentives to com e and
stay in any given locality. In addition, the B oeing m odel w ants governm ental sanction and support to offer
low er w ages and benefits for the sam e w ork w ith no-cost hum an resource services and training. O n top of
these, the new m odel dem ands that governm ent provide extensive financing and infrastructure to support
operations. T he B oeing m odel uses sophisticated m arketing, heavy-handed relationships w ith key decision
m akers and the fear of job loss to enforce its agenda.
B oeing and those w ho follow its lead drain resources from em ployees and governm ents w hile dem anding
investm ent in roads, sew ers, and supplem entary system s to facilitate expansion. T he m ultiple dem ands
leave state and local governm ents incapable of m aintaining the intricate netw ork of program s that are
vital for com m unities to thrive. T his also erodes the public sector fram ew ork for grow ing and m aintaining
a strong m iddle class education, public health and safety, transportation, housing and investm ents in
technology.
T his is the bottom line for B oeing's 'cash cow 'approach to local governm ent. T he com bination of dem ands
for low taxes, low w ages and high-cost infrastructure is unsustainable. In 2004, a review of state taxes by
the U niversity of K ansas sum m arized the consequences clearly:"L ow business costs generally translate into
low w ages and low tax revenues. L ow w ages generally translate into low incom es, and low tax revenues
generally translate into low levels of educational expenditure and other governm ent services. A nd low
incom e and low services generally translate into a low quality of life'
T hat's not how the com pany sees it, of course. B oeing and its top executives are self-consciously bold,
buoyant, futuristic, optim istic. T hat's w hy it calls the new 787 aircraft the D ream liner. B ut B oeing's 'dream '
scenario clashes w ith the realities of how it conducts business. B oeing m akes im possible dem ands of
com m unities that sim ply cannot be satisfied in a w orld of shared prosperity. T he only w ay that states and
com m unities can satisfy B oeing's insatiable dem ands is by disassem bling its prize public structures and
borrow ing unsustainably into the future.
In the long run, B oeing's m odel for the new global corporation is a recipe for an A m erica w ithout a m iddle
class.
18
NLRB-FOIA-00007241
E ndnotes
'T he presentation w as first m ade public by P aul C hesser, "O n M ilking a S tate's'C ash C ow ," C arolina Journal
O nline, a publication of the C arolina C ouncil, M ay 20, 2004.1t w as subsequently referred to in G reg
L eR oy's com prehensive The G reatAm erican Job Scan:C orporate Tax D odging and the M yth ofJob C reation,
2005 (B errett-K oehler Publishers Inc., San Francisco)
"E urope's V A T L essons," editorial, W allStreetJournal, A pril 15,2010
The Boeing C om pany 2009 AnnualR eport, p.3
T he B oeing C om pany, Form ,10-K for various years. In 2009, see N ote 12, p.83
D avid S lade and K aty S tech,"B oeing's w hopping incentives;' C harleston Postand C ourier, January 17, 2010;
K aty S tech,"B oeing w ould pay 4 percent tax rate," C harleston Postand C ourier, January 9, 2010
W ashington R esearch C ouncil, The Billfor Boeing,"June 23, 2003
'Jack lyne,"63 M illion in Incentives, L ast-S econd S pace D eal H elp C hicago L and B oeing;' Site Selection,June
2001.
'R obert S . M cIntyre and T .D . C oo N guyen, C orporate Incom e Taxes in the Bush Years, C itizens for T ax Justice
and Institute on T axation and E conom ic P olicy, 2005
R obert S. M cIntyre and T .D . C oo N guyen, "State C orporate Incom e T axes: 2001-2003,"State Tax Notes,
M arch 7, 2005.
' M artin A . Sullivan, "C orporate R eports Show State T ax on Profits Falling,"State Tax Notes, M ay 19,2008
" U .S. G overnm ent A ccountability O ffice, InternationalTaxation:Large U .S.C orporations and Federal
C ontractors w ith Subsidiaries in Jurisdictions Listed as Tax H avens or FinancialPrivacy Jurisdictions, G A O -09-
157, D ecem ber 2008
17
"C om panies w ith the fattest tax breaks;'BusinessW eek, D ecem ber 4, 2007
13
N anette B yrnes, "W hat U .S. C om panies R eally Pay in Taxes;'BusinessW eek, A pril 7,2010
14
T he B oeing C om pany, 2009 Form 10-K, p.69
L eslie W ayne, "3 Senators Protest Possible T ax D eduction for B oeing in Settling U .S. C ase,"N ew York Tim es,
July 7, 2006
15
D avid S lade and K aty S tech,"B oeing's w hopping incentives:' C harleston Postand C ourier, January 17, 2010
16
17 Slade and Stech
19
19
Seattle Tim es business staff, "B oeing's C harleston tax breaks top $800M ; 60 years and counting for airplane
tax break," Seattle Tim es,January 23, 2010
W arw ick Jones, "T rident T ech, B oeing S pending R aise Q uestions;' TheN erve (w w w .thenerve.oro, affiliated
w ith the South C arolina Policy C ouncil), M arch 15, 2010
R ick B rundrett,"B oeing to G et A nother T axpayer-Funded G ift," TheN erve (w w w .thenerve.org ,affiliated
w ith the S outh C arolina P olicy C ouncil), F ebruary 26, 2010
21
27
23
Jack L yne,"63 M illion in Incentives, L ast-Second Space D eal H elp C hicago L and B oeing," Site Selection,
June 2001.
R on Starner and M ark A ren'cl,"B ehind B oeing's Flight Plan," Site Selection, S eptem ber 2001
Jeff M cC ourt, G reg L eR oy and Phillip M attera,"A B etter D eal for Illinois: Im proving E conom ic
D evelopm ent P olicy,"S tate Tax Notes, M arch 31, 2003
19
NLRB-FOIA-00007242
D om inic G ates, "S .C . decision transform s B oeing's relationship w ith W ashington, labor unions1S eattle
24
Tim es, N ovem ber 1, 2009
" Jack L yne,"B oeing's $900-m illion 7E 7 Plant N earing T ouchdow n," Site Selection, S eptem ber 2003
26
B oth quotes are from B rier D udley,"L earning hard lessons from B oeing giveaw ays1S eattle Tim es,July 6,
2009
2 'D
avid P ostm an,"22 states bid for 7E 7; som e think they're just B oeing's bait," Seattle Tim es, June 20,2003
28
P ostm an
29
The Boeing C om pany 2009 AnnualR eport, p.2
D om inic G ates, "W hy C harleston could land 787 line Seattle Tim es, O ct. 23, 2009
" U .S. B ureau of L abor Statistics, U nion Affiliation ofem ployed w age and salary w orkers by state, 2009
StatisticalAbstractofthe U nited States 2008, "Infant M ortality R ate 2005"
32
" U .S. C ensus B ureau, R 1502.PercentofPeople 25 Years and O verW ho H ave C om pleted a Bachelor's D egree,
2008
U .S.C ensus B ureau, R 1704.PercentofC hildren U nder18 Years Below Poverty Level, 2008
34
35 D
om inic G ates,"A lbaugh: B oeing's 'first preference'is to build planes in P uget S ound region;'S eattle T im es, M arch 1,
2010
D ana H edgpeth,"B oeing's S .C . jobs a setback for unions," W ashington Post, O ctober 30, 2009
36
31
T he B oeIng C om pany, "E m ploym ent by location1w w w .boeing.com /em ploym ent/em ploym ent ta b le .
htm l
38
T he B oeing C om pany,"E m ploym ent by location;'
39
D om inic G ates, "H uge tax breaks for aerospace didn't deliver m any new jobs,"Seattle Tim es, D ec.17,2007
D om inic G ates and Justin M ayo, "P ay in aerospace is low for non-B oeing w orkers1S eattle Tim es, D ec.16,
2007
41
W ikipedia contributors, "B oeing 7871 W ikipedia,The Free Encyclopedia, retrieved A pril 19, 2010
42
B ill Seil,"Sharing the D ream ," Boeing Frontiers, published by T he B oeing C om pany, A ugust 2006
43
D om inic G ates, "B oeing shares w ork, but guards its secrets," S eattle Tim es, M ay 15,2007
44
T he B oeing C om pany, Sum m ary of7E7 site selection criteria,Seattle Post-Intelligencer,M ay 17,2003
45
T he B oeing C om pany and the S tate of W ashington, C ounty of S nohom ish, C ity of E verett and certain
other governm ental units and authorities of or in the state of W ashington, ProjectO lym pus M aster Site
D evelopm entand Location A greem ent, D ecem ber 19,2003. A vailable from E vergreen F reedom F oundation
46
4
T he B oeing C om pany, N otice of2010 AnnualM eeting and Proxy Statem ent
' U .S. G overnm ent A ccountability O ffice, D efense C ontracting:Post-G overnm entEm ploym entofForm er D O D
O fficials N eeds G reaterTransparency, G A 0-08-485,M ay 2008
48
C enter for R esponsive Politics, O penSecrets.org
"C enter for R esponsive P olitics, O penSecrets.org
C enter for R esponsive Politics, O penSecrets.org
"E ric K . W ard,"B oeing's'A 'T eam : T urned to Pow er B rokers," TheN erve (w w w .thenerve.org ,affiliated w ith the
S outh C arolina P olicy C ouncil), January 14,2010
52
D avid B runori,"L lam as, A lpacas, O striches, E m us, and a B ig D odo," State Tax Notes, A pril 5,2004
20
NLRB-FOIA-00007243
" W ill E vans, "S tim ulus funds aiding com panies fined for pollution, accused of fraud,"O range C ounty
Register, January 8, 2010
54
P roject on G overnm ent O versight (P O G O ), FederalC ontractor M isconductD atabase
"W ashington R esearch C ouncil, The BillforBoeing," June 23, 2003
56
E lizabeth M cN ichol and N icholas Johnson, R ecession continues to batter state budgets;state responses
could slow recovery," C enter on B udget and P olicy P riorities, F ebruary 25, 2010
" N icholas Johnson, Phil O liff and E rica W illiam s, A n update on state budgetcuts,"C enter on B udget and
Policy Priorities,M arch 8,2010
58
59
68
61
62
63
64
L iv O sby,"A dditional coverage w ould cost nearly $1B," C harleston Postand C ourier, M arch 25, 2010
R ick M ontgom ery, "K ansas'm odel parole program collapses w ith state budget cuts,'Kansas C ity Star,
A pril 3,2010
L egislative D ivision of Post A udit, State of K ansas, Perform ance AuditR eport Econom ic D evelopm ent:
D eterm ining the Am ounts the State H as Spenton Econom ic D evelopm entProgram s and the Econom ic
Im pacts on Kansas C ounties, A ugust 2008
See,for exam ple,C hristopher D rew and N icola C lark, "W .T .O .A ffirm s R uling of Im proper A irbus A id," N ew
York Tim es, M arch 23, 2010
The U .S . com plaint against E urope and A irbus is sum m arized in E uropean C om m unities and C ertain
M em ber States M easures A ffecting T rade in L arge C ivil A ircraft, W T /D S316, E xecutive Sum m ary of
the first subm ission of the U nited S tates of A m erica, N ovem ber 25, 2006. A vailable on B oeing's w eb
site at: w w w .boeing.com /aboutus/govt_ops/docs/w to/w to_exec_sum m ary_112506.pdf T he E uropean
com plaint against the U .S . and B oeing is sum m arized in T he E U W T O challenge to U S subsidies to B oeing.
B ackground. D S 353. January 2008. A vailable at the E uropean U nion w eb site: http://trade.ec.europa.ed/
doclib/docs/2008/january/tradoc_137522.pdf
D om inic G ates, "B oeing shares w ork, but guards its secrets," S eattle Tim es, M ay 15,2007
D avid B urress, P atricia O slund and L uke M iddleton, Business Taxes and C osts:A C ross-State C om parison,"
Policy R esearch Institute R eport N o. 271, T he U niversity of K ansas
21
NLRB-FOIA-00007244
lit
p o lic y r e s e a r c h in th e p u b lic in te r e s t
325 W est S ilver S pring, G lendale, W I 53217 P hone 414-967-1682 Fax 414-967-3630
E m ailiw f@ w isconsinsfuture.org W eb w w w .w isconsinsfuture.org
NLRB-FOIA-00007245
Testim ony of P rofessor Julius G etm an
E arl E .Sheffield R egents C hair of L abor L aw
at the U niversity of Texas School of L aw
B efore the H ouse of R epresentatives O versight C om m ittee H earing
C harleston,South C arolina
F riday June 17,2011
I am Julius G etm an, E arl E . Sheffield R egents C hair of L aw at the U niversity of T exas at
A ustin. I have taught labor law since 1963. Prior to com ing to T exas I w as a tenured professor at
Indiana U niversity School of L aw , Stanford U niversity S chool of L aw , and Y ale L aw School. I
have w ritten extensively on issues of labor law . I am the co-author of a w idely used treatise on
basic labor law and w as co-principal investigator of a m ajor study of union organizing
cam paigns. M ost recently, I have published Restoring the P ow er of U nions It T akes a
M ovem ent, w hich tells the history of the hotel and restaurant w orkers union and discusses the
current law . I appreciate the opportunity w hich the com m ittee's invitation provides m e to express
m y opinion on im portant issues of labor law and policy.
T he G eneral C ounsel's com plaint alleges that B oeing has transferred w ork, w hich w ould
otherw ise have been done at its W ashington state facility, to South C arolina in reprisal for past
strikes, and w ith the avow ed purpose of heading off future strikes. If the G eneral C ounsel can
establish the truth of this allegation, and public statem ents by B oeing officials seem to
acknow ledge its accuracy,'he w ill have show n that B oeing violated Section 8 (a) (3) of the
N L R A . T here is nothing new or controversial about this conclusion. Section 8(a) (3) of the
N ational L abor R elations A ct m akes it an unfair labor practice for an em ployer "by
discrim ination in regard to hire or tenure of em ploym ent or any term of condition of em ploym ent
'A listof statem ents attributing the m ove of "dream hner" w ork to South C arolina to union activity is
contained the G eneralC ounsel's com plaint.
NLRB-FOIA-00007246
to encourage or discourage m em bership in any labor organization.

2
T he purpose of this section
is "to allow em ployees to freely exercise their right to join unions,be good,bad,or indifferent
m em bers,or abstain from joining any union w ithout im periling their livelihood." 3In accord w ith
this policy,the C ourt has held that to "encourage of discourage m em bership m eans also to
encourage or discourage participation in union activities. 4
M oving jobs from once facility to another to avoid unionization or to punish w orkers for
engaging in protected activity violates this basic policy of the A ct.T hese practices have long
been declared illegal by the B oard,w ith the agreem ent of the C ourts.
In 1965,the Suprem e C ourt decided in the case of Textile W orkers U nion v.D arlington
M anufacturing C o 5 that a com pany m ay legally go out of business to thw art union activity,but
it also held that "[a] partial closing is an unfair labor practice ...if m otivated by a purpose to chill
unionism ."
T w o years later,then Judge,later C hief Justice B urger stated in Local 57, International
Ladies'G arm ent W orkers'U nion v.N ational Labor Relations B oard,1967, 6 "W hile it is now
clear that an em ployer m ay term inate his business for any reason,it is equally w ell settled that he
m ay not transfer its situs to deprive his em ployees of rights protected by Section 7." 7 N ot only
have the C ourts regularly affirm ed unfair labor practice findings based on retaliation,but they
2 49
Stat.452 (1935),as am ended,29 U .S.C . 158(2)(3) (1958).
R adio O fficers'U nion v.N L R B ,347 U .S.17,40 (1954).
1d. A t39-42.
380 U .S.263.
374 F2d 295.
Ithas been understood since the N L R A w as passed in 1937 thatthe rightto stnke is protected by
Section 7.
NLRB-FOIA-00007247
have upheld strong rem edies including the restoration of im properly closed facilities. 8
A ccordingly I am in agreem ent w ith the host of distinguished labor law scholars w ho have
publically supported the G eneral C ounsel's conclusion that issuance of a com plaint w as justified
in the B oeing case.9
D espite a spate of angry statem ents to the contrary,there is no basis for the accusation
that the issuance of a com plaint is in any w ay connected to the fact that South C arolina is a right
to w ork state R ight to w ork is a frequently m isunderstood concept.D espite the nam e it has
nothing to do w ith the em ployer's ability to hire or fire.N or does it refer to the right to unionize.
It refers only to the ability of states to prohibit unions from negotiating m andatory dues
paym ents from w orkers that they represent.H ad B oeing transferred operations on the sam e basis
to a non-union facility in a non-right to w ork state,its actions w ould still have violated the A ct.
T his sam e w ell-established precedent supports the general counsel in the instant case.
G iven the routine nature of the violation and the lim ited nature of the proposed rem edy
(discussed below ),it is difficult for m e to understand the sense of outrage that has preceded and
given rise to this hearing.T he B oard has routinely found violations of section 8 (a) (3) based on
em ployer reprisal for union activity since the A ct w as first passed in 1935 I know of no case in
w hich a political reaction com parable to the current denunciations of the G eneral C ounsel's
action has resulted.O ne w onders w hy the issuance of a com plaint,a prelim inary step far less
final than a B oard decision,should be responded to so intensely.B ehind the fervent
denunciations there seem s to be a deep m isunderstanding of the likely consequences of the
G eneral C ounsel's actions.Som e seem to find,in the G eneral C ounsel's actions,the first step of
See e.g.Team sters Local17 v.N LR B ,803 F 2d 946 (D .C .C ir 1988).
,9The listincludes Professors Jam es B rudney of O hio State,C athenne Fisk of C alIrvine,and Ellen
D annin of Penn State.These are alloutstanding,nationally recognized scholars.
NLRB-FOIA-00007248
a process to take from em ployers the right to m ake basic business decisions.In fact the
com plaint itself specifically states that aside from returning the w ork im properly rem oved from
the unionized w orkers,"the A cting G eneral C ounsel does not seek to prohibit R espondent from
m aking non-discrim inatory decisions w ith respect to w here w ork.w ill be perform ed,including
non-discrim inatory decisions w ith respect to w ork at its N orth C harleston,South C arolina,
facility."
N or has this,or any other L abor B oard,ever argued for or signaled support for,a policy
depriving em ployers of the right to m ake basic entrepreneurial non-discrim inatory decisions.
A nd if the B oard w ere to overreact in this regard,the C ourts are available to correct their
excesses.
T he N ational L abor R elations B oard,the agency to w hich C ongress has delegated the
process of interpreting the N L R A ,has not yet ruled on the case.E ven if the G eneral C ounsel's
theory of violation w ere som ehow erroneous,there w ould be no basis for C ongressional
involvem ent in the decision process at this point.T he N L R B is an agency w ith tw o separate
arm s: the G eneral C ounsel w ho prosecutes possible unfair labor practices and the five-m em ber
B oard w hich rules on them .T here has been no ruling by the B oard itself on the B oeing case.
T he tw o branches of the B oard act independently of each other.T he five-m em ber B oard
according to statute and precedent played no part in the decision by the G eneral C ounsel to bring
a com plaint.A nd the G eneral C ounsel does not play a role other than that of advocate in the
B oard's decisional process.B efore the B oard itself issues any order,the case m ust be heard and
decided by an A dm inistrative L aw Judge and then by the B oard itself T he B oard should be
perm itted to decide this case according to the law w ithout political interference.A s Justice
NLRB-FOIA-00007249
Frankfurter stated over 50 years ago w ith respect to the reach of sections 7 and 8,"It is essential
that these determ inations be left in the first instance to the N ational L abor R elations B oard." I
T he com plaint is sim ply an allegation; it does not require B oeing to take any action.
Indeed the sam e w ould be true if the B oard ultim ately decides against B oeing.B oeing m ay bring
the m atter to a C ourt of A ppeals w ithout taking any of the steps contained in the B oard's order,
or it m ay sim ply w ait for the B oard to do so in an enforcem ent action,before com plying.N ot
until the B oard's order is enforced by a C ourt of A ppeals w ould B oeing be legally com pelled to
take action in accordance w ith the B oard's ruling.A nd if all of the adjudicatory agencies,yet to
rule on the case,agree w ith the A cting G eneral C ounsel,the im pact on B oeing w ill not be
catastrophic since the G eneral C ounsel is not seeking to have B oeing give up its South C arolina
facility and agrees that it m ay transfer w ork to it,so long as its decision to do so is m ade on a
non-discrim inatory basis.In short,there is no reason for the sense of urgency that has provoked
these hearings.
W hat is unprecedented is a com m ittee of the C ongress choosing to intervene w hile the
processes of law are still in so prelim inary a state.I know of no sim ilar instance.It is inevitable
that this intervention w ill be interpreted by m any as an unw arranted attack on the N L R B and an
inappropriate effort to influence the ongoing adjudicatory process.
ISan D iego B uilding Trades C ouncilv.G arm on,359 U .S.23 (1959).
NLRB-FOIA-00007250
C ongressm an T rey G ow dy
Q uestions from E d and W orkforce H earing on
C orporate Cam paigns
C an B oeing factor in South C arolina's financial incentives in their decision to relocate?
W ould you be doing a pretty a sorry job for your shareholders if you didn't factor in the
incentives a location is w illing to offer w hen you m ake a decision about w here to locate a
plant?
A re you fam iliar w ith the case of First N ational M aintenance C orp. v. N L R B ? A m I
stating this correctly that C ongress had no expectation that the union w ould becom e a
partner in the running of the business enterprise?
Is that a fair quote from the holding or dicta of that case?
So B oeing has to m ake w hat is the best decision for them , right? T hey can factor in
incentives from another state, right? Is there any evidence that B oeing negotiated in bad
faith?
A nd this case is going to turn on w hether this a new line of w ork or a transfer of existing
w ork,right?
A re you privy to the fact that B oeing added nearly 2,000 jobs in W ashington State even
after the transfer of w ork to N orth C harleston?
A re you fam iliar w ith the quote from the spokesperson of the N L R B ? "W e're not telling
B oeing they can't build planes in South C arolina, w e're talking about one specific piece
of w ork: three planes a m onth. If they keep those three planes a m onth in W ashington,
then there is no problem . B eyond the ten planes, B oeing can build w hatever it w ants in
South C arolina."
H ave w e gotten to the point w here the N L R B is going to tell a com pany how m any
w idgets or planes or anything else they can build in any particular state? Is that how you
read this? T he N L R B is going to tell a com pany precisely the num ber of a product it can
build in a state?
M r.M cN ierny,the C E O of B oeing,said that one of the considerations in w here to place
the new w ork is strikes. Is it inappropriate legally that one of the considerations for
w here they're going to place a new line of w ork is w hether or not they w ill have a
consistent source of labor?
L et's be very clear on that, because there w as a costum er w ho said w e are going to have
to re-evaluate our relationship w ith you,because of your inability to guarantee the
reliability of your w ork. A costum er is going to go som ew here else because there have
been four strikes,correct?
NLRB-FOIA-00007251
A m Ito be led to believe by the N L R B that that cannot be considered?
W ell let m e ask you this,is it O K for him to think it and just not say it? I m ean w ould he
have been fine to just think to him self,w e better look for another,m ore consistent
w orkforce,instead of saying it,w as thatthe sin he com m itted thathe actually said it?
W ell,m y tim e is alm ost up,I find it an abom ination that you can w ear a prison uniform
and representyourself as a prisoner w hile you are at w ork but the CE O of B oeing cannot
say: "W e can't survive w ith these continued w ork stoppages."
T hat is an abom ination.
NLRB-FOIA-00007252
ST A T E M E N T O F
L A FE E . SO L O M O N
A C T IN G G E N E R A L C O U N SE L
N A T IO N A L L A B O R R E L A T IO N S B O A R D
B E FO R E T H E
C O M M IT T E E O N O V E R SIG H T A N D G O V E R N M E N T R E FO R M
U N IT E D ST A T E D H O U SE O F R E PR E SE N T A T IV E S
N O R T H C H A R L E ST O N , SO U T H C A R O L IN A
JU N E 17,2011
NLRB-FOIA-00007253
M r.C hairm an and distinguished M em bers of the C om m ittee:
I appear before you today as the A cting G eneralC ounselof the N ationalL abor R elations
B oard,having been appointed to this position by President O bam a on June 21,2010.For
the 38 years before m y appointm ent,I have served as a career civil servant in m any
positions throughout the A gency,ranging from field exam iner,staff attorney,supervisory
attorney,and finally,as a m em ber of the Senior E xecutive Service.
I w ould like to start by acknow ledging that w orkers in N orth C harleston are feeling
vulnerable and anxious because they are uncertain as to w hat im pact any final decision
m ay have on their em ploym ent w ith B oeing.T hese are difficult econom ic tim es,and I
truly regret the anxiety this case has caused them and their fam ilies.T he issuance of the
com plaint w as not intended to harm the w orkers of South C arolina,but rather,to protect
the rights of w orkers,regardless of w here they are em ployed,to engage in activities
protected by the N ational L abor R elations A ct,w ithout fearing discrim ination.B oeing
has every right to m anufacture planes in South C arolina,or anyw here else,for that
m atter,as long as those decisions are based on legitim ate business considerations.
T his com plaint w as issued only after the parties failed to inform ally resolve this dispute.
I personally m et w ith the parties and I tried for three m onths to facilitate a settlem ent of
the case.I rem ain open to playing a constructive role in assisting the parties to settle this
dispute w ithout the costs and uncertainties associated w ith extended litigation.I believe
that,given the parties'longstanding bargaining relationship,a settlem ent w ould serve the
NLRB-FOIA-00007254
interests of the parties and the w orkers and w ould prom ote industrial peace.In the
absence of a m utually acceptable settlem ent,how ever,both B oeing and the M achinists
U nion have a legal right to present their evidence and argum ents in a trial and to have
those issues be decided by the B oard and federal courts.
I w ould like to begin by describing briefly the relevant regulatory fram ew ork and the role
of the O ffice of G eneral C ounsel w ithin that fram ew ork.T he N ational L abor R elations
A ct divides responsibility over private-sector labor relations betw een the N ational L abor
R elations B oard and the G eneral C ounsel of the B oard.T he B oard adjudicates cases in
accordance w ith the procedures set forth in the A ct itself,the A dm inistrative Procedures
A ct,and the C onstitution.T he O ffice of the G eneral C ounsel serves as a prosecutor of
labor law violations in such cases.
T he O ffice of the G eneral C ounsel w as created by the T aft-H artley A m endm ents of 1947.
U nder Section 3(d) of the am ended A ct,the G eneral C ounsel has "final authority",on
behalf of the B oard,w ith respect to the investigation and prosecution of unfair labor
practice com plaints.In order to ensure that the new ly-established G eneral C ounsel of the
N L R B w ould have both the independence and resources necessary to m ake final,
unreview able decisions in typically heated labor and m anagem ent controversies,Section
3(d) also provided that,w ith the exception of adm inistrative law judges and legal
assistants to B oard m em bers,G eneral C ounsel "shall exercise general supervision over
all attorneys em ployed by the B oard" and w ould have general supervision "over the
officers and em ployees in the regional offices." L ike m y predecessors,I have gone to
NLRB-FOIA-00007255
great lengths to ensure that all unfair labor practice charges,w hich m ust be initiated by
private parties,are fairly considered,relying on "findings,reasons,precedents,checks
through appeals and through internal supervision,and procedural protections." See K .
D avis,D iscretionary Justice 207 (1969).
T o that end,all charges filed w ith our regional offices are carefully and im partially
investigated to determ ine w hether there is reasonable cause to believe that,under the
B oard's precedents,an unfair labor practice has been com m itted.Fairness to the parties
and sound developm ent of the law w eighs in favor of presenting these types of cases to
the B oard for decision,subject to review by the courts.See K enneth C .M cG uiness,
E ffectofthe D iscretionary P ow er ofthe G eneral C ounsel on the D evelopm ent of the
Law , 29 G eo.W ash.L .R ev.385,397 (1960).I w ould not be fulfilling m y responsibilities
if I turned a blind eye to evidence that an unfair labor practice m ay have occurred.I took
an oath to enforce the N ational L abor R elations A ct and to protect w orkers from unlaw ful
conduct.
T he G eneral C ounsel's concern w ith fairness to the parties does not end w ith the issuance
of the com plaint.T he Suprem e C ourt has recognized that the A ct and the B oard's rules
are designed to ensure that proceedings are conducted in a m anner that respects the
private rights of the charging party and the charged party. Autom obile W orkers v.
Scofield, 382 U .S.205,217-221 (1965).
NLRB-FOIA-00007256
T he Suprem e C ourt has also recognized that "C ongress intended to create an officer
independent of the B oard to handle prosecutions, not m erely the filing of com plaints."
N LR B v.U nited F ood & C om m .W orkers U n.,

484 U .S.112,127 (1987) (em phasis in
original).T hus,throughout the proceeding,the G eneral C ounsel rem ains m aster of the
com plaint and the charging party is not perm itted to pursue alternative theories of a
violation w ithout the consentof the G eneral C ounsel.

See,e.g.,Team sters,Local 282
(E .G .C lem ente C ontracting C orp.), 335 N L R B 1253,1254 (2001).T hroughout the
proceedings,the G eneralC ounselis responsible to ensure thatthe prosecution of the case
is justified by the facts and law .A s such,it rem ains open to the G eneral C ounsel to m ake
concessions on issues of fact or law and to pursue settlem ent discussions w ith the charged
party -- even over the objections of the charging party.
For allthese reasons,the actual fairness of the proceedings before the B oard -- and,
equally im portant,the perception that the B oard's adm inistrative processes are fair --
vitally depends on the public and the parties retaining the confidence thatthe G eneral
C ounselis carrying out his prosecutorialresponsibilities on the basis of the facts and law
in the case,and is not m aking decisions on the basis of political or other m atters not
properly before the B oard.
A s you know ,the B oeing hearing began on T uesday of this w eek before an
adm inistrative law judge in Seattle,W ashington.I am actively involved in overseeing
the B oeing litigation and in strategic decisions necessary for the prosecution of this case.
M y obligation to protectthe independence of the O ffice of the G eneralC ounsel and the
NLRB-FOIA-00007257
integrity of the enforcem ent process restricts m y ability to offer insight into the decision-
m aking here.I hope you w ill share m y com m itm ent that these proceedings not be
construed as an effort by the C ongress to exert pressure or attem pt to influence m y
prosecutorial decisions in this case,w hich have been and w ill continue to be m ade based
on the law and the m erits and in a m anner w hich protects the due process rights of the
litigants.
I com e here voluntarily out of respect for the oversight role of C ongress.I w ill do m y
best to answ er your questions,consistent w ith m y obligations to the parties and to the
A m erican public w ith respect to the ongoing B oeing case.T he adjudicatory process m ust
be fair and im partial so that the parties'due process rights,w hich are guaranteed by the
C onstitution,are preserved.O ur A m erican legal system of justice is guided by these
fundam entalprinciples.
NLRB-FOIA-00007258
L A FE E . SO L O M O N
B E FO R E T H E
N O R T H C H A R L E ST O N , SO U T H C A R O L IN A
JU N E 17,2011
NLRB-FOIA-00007259
M r.C hairm an and distinguished M em bers of the C om m ittee:
I appear before you today as the A cting G eneralC ounselof the N ationalL abor R elations
B oard,having been appointed to this position by President O bam a on June 21,2010.
I w ould like to start by acknow ledging that w orkers in N orth C harleston are feeling
vulnerable and anxious because they are uncertain as to w hat im pact any final decision
com plaint w as not intended to harm the w orkers of South C arolina,but rather,to protect
protected by the N ational L abor R elations A ct,w ithout fearing discrim ination.B oeing
has every right to m anufacture planes in South C arolina,or anyw here else,for that
I personally m et w ith the parties and I tried for three m onths to facilitate a settlem ent of
dispute w ithout the costs and uncertainties associated w ith extended litigation.I believe
that,given the parties'longstanding bargaining relationship,a settlem ent w ould serve the
interests of the parties and the w orkers and w ould prom ote industrial peace.In the
NLRB-FOIA-00007260
U nion have a legal right to present their evidence and argum ents in a trial and to have
those issues be decided by the B oard and federal courts.
A ll,charges filed w ith our regional offices are carefully and im partially investigated to
determ ine w hether there is reasonable cause to believe that,under the B oard's precedents,
an unfair labor practice has been com m itted.Fairness to the parties and sound
developm ent of the law w eighs in favor of presenting these types of cases to the B oard
for decision,subject to review by the courts.I w ould not be fulfilling m y responsibilities
if I turned a blind eye to evidence that an unfair labor practice m ay have occurred.I took
an oath to enforce the N ational L abor R elations A ct and to protect w orkers from unlaw ful
conduct.
T he G eneral C ounsel's concern w ith fairness to the parties does not end w ith the issuance
of the com plaint.T hroughout the proceeding,the G eneral C ounsel rem ains m aster of the
com plaint and is responsible to ensure that the prosecution of the case is justified by the
facts and law .A s such,it rem ains open to the G eneral C ounsel to m ake concessions on
issues of fact or law and to pursue settlem ent discussions w ith the charged party -- even
over the objections of the charging party.
For allthese reasons,the actual fairness of the proceedings before the B oard -- and,
equally im portant,the perception that the B oard's adm inistrative processes are fair --
NLRB-FOIA-00007261
in the case,and is not m aking decisions on the basis of political O r otheim atters not
properly before the B oard.
A s you know ,the B oeing hearing began on T uesday of this w eek before an
M y obligation to protectthe independence of the O ffice of the G eneralC ounsel and the
m aking here.I hope you w ill share m y com m itm ent that these proceedings not be
construed as an effort by the C ongress to exert pressure or attem pt to influence m y
prosecutorial decisions in this case,w hich have been and w ill continue to be m ade based
on the law and the m erits and in a m anner w hich protects the due process rights of the
litigants.
I com e here voluntarily out of respect for the oversight role of C ongress.I w ill do m y
best to answ er your questions,consistent w ith m y obligations to the parties and to the
be fair and im partial so that the parties'due process rights,w hich are guaranteed by the
C onstitution,are preserved.O ur A m erican legal system of justice is guided by these
NLRB-FOIA-00007262
United *tam s*nate
W A S H IN G T O N , D C 20510
M ay 4,2011
PresidentBarack O bam a
The W hite H ouse
1600 Pennsylvania A venue N W
D ear Presidentbarna:
In your State ofthe Union address,you said:"W e know w hatittakes to com pete for the jobs and
industries ofour tim e.W e need to out-innovate,out-educate,and out-build the restofthe w orld.
W e have to m ake A m erica the bestplace on Earth to do business."
W e agree.G lobalcom petition for business and jobs is m ore im portantthan ever as our country
struggles to recover from the lingering recession and cope w ith the m assive debtburden im posed
on the econom y by increased governm entspending.
Unfortunately,recentactions by your handpicked politicalappointees atthe N ationalLabor
R elations Board are m aking itm ore difficultfor A m erica to w in the future.
The N LR B,atthe behestofA cting G eneralC ounselLafe Solom on,has taken unprecedented
legalaction againstThe Boeing C om pany to preventitfrom expanding productions into South
C arolina,a state thatassures w orkers the freedom notto join a union as a condition of
em ploym ent.W e consider this an attack on m illions ofw orkers in 22 right-to-w ork states,as
w ellas a governm ent-led actofintim idation againstA m erican com panies thatshould have the
freedom to choose to build plants in right-to-w ork states.
Ifthe N LR B prevails,itw illonly encourage com panies to m ake their investm ents in foreign
nations,m oving jobs and econom ic grow th overseas.A m erica w illnotw in the future if
W ashington penalizes w orkers in states thathave discovered w inning econom ic strategies.R ight-
to-w ork states have faster job grow th,faster incom e grow th,and faster population grow th than
forced-unionism states.This w inning strategy should be duplicated nationw ide.Instead,
successfulw orkers rights are being stam ped out by politicalappointees w ho serve at your
pleasure and have notbeen confirm ed by the Senate.
Y ou nom inated M r.Solom on to becom e G eneralC ounselfor N LR B and serve a fullfour-year
term on January 5,2011,yet,m em bers ofthe Senate have notbeen able to vet him . M r.Solom on
has notappeared for a Senate confirm ation hearing,nor has he been subjected to a fullSenate
confirm ation vote,A dditionally,you granted a recess appointm entto C raig Becker,a form er
law yer for the Service Em ployees InternationalUnion and A FL-C IO ,to becom e one ofthe five
m em bers ofthe N LR B's pow erfulboard over w idespread,bipartisan objections in the Senate to
his nom ination.The Senate rejected his nom ination in February 2010.A ll41 R epublican
senators w rote you a letter in M arch 2010 urging you notto give M r.Becker a recess
NLRB-FOIA-00007263
appointm ent,w hich you did later thatm onth,effectively circum venting the w illofthe U.S.
Senate.
The Senate has been unacceptably denied the ability to exercise its constitutionalduty ofadvise
and consentin regards to the N LR B.In lightofthe N LR B's recentactions thatw ould have a
deleterious effecton job creation and econom ic opportunity across the country,itis tim e to hold
the N LR B accountable.
W e urge you to w ithdraw both M r.Solom on's and M r.Becker's nom inations to their respective
positions im m ediately.Ifnot,w e w illvigorously oppose both nom inations,vote againstcloture
and use allproceduraltools available to defeattheir confirm ation in the Senate.
..._
Sincerely,
NLRB-FOIA-00007264
U e,L ,
-2)1
4 C % -.
NLRB-FOIA-00007265
(C ongress of O r ilititeb -tates
Illas'ling -toil, D T 20515
June 16,2011
T he H onorable D arrell Issa
C hairm an
C om m ittee on O versight and G overnm ent R eform
U .S.H ouse of R epresentatives
W ashington,D .C .20515
D ear M r.C hairm an:
A s the R anking M em bers of the tw o H ouse C om m ittees w ith oversight and legislative
jurisdiction over the N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ),w e w rite to express our grave
concerns about the June 17,2011,field hearing you have scheduled in South C arolina regarding
the N L R B com plaint against T he B oeing C om pany (B oeing).T hese concerns have been
heightened by your latest letter to the N L R B 's A cting G eneral C ounsel,L afe Solom on,on June
14,2011.
T he tim ing of the hearing,your insistence on M r.Solom on's personal appearance,and the
nature of your June 14 letter indicate a serious potential for im proper interference w ith a pending
case involving private parties and a disturbing disregard for w hat that interference could m ean for
the due process rights of those parties.
Y our letter also raises new questions about the intent of this hearing. T he hearing
ostensibly relates to the N L R B A cting G eneral C ounsel's case against B oeing. T his case opened
on T uesday,June 14 before an A dm inistrative L aw Judge,just three days before your scheduled
hearing. T hat tim ing does not appear to be coincidental. A lthough you could have held a
hearing w ith any array of experts,you have insisted that the chief prosecutor of the case the
person w ith ultim ate decision-m aking authority over all prosecutorial decisions in the case
testify at this hearing w hile the trial is underw ay. T hose prosecutorial decisions do not end w ith
the issuance of a com plaint. Significant decisions w ill continue to be m ade until the prosecution
rests.Y et,you have indicated that you plan to subject this decision-m aker to questions about the
active case at the hearing.
In the m eantim e,you have dem anded internal deliberative docum ents from M r.Solom on
that could include,am ong other things,docum ents revealing the prosecution's trial strategy.
Such inform ation,if disclosed during the pendency of the case, w ould unfairly advantage the
PR IN T E D O N R E C Y C LE D PA PE R
NLRB-FOIA-00007266
T he H onorable D arrellIssa
Page 2
respondent,B oeing,and disadvantage the prosecution and the charging party.T he intrusive
nature of your dem and for docum ents,as w ell as your approach to constitutional concerns in the
June 14 letter,indicate that you have every intention at the upcom ing hearing of pressing the very
kinds of questions that putthe due process rights of private parties in jeopardy.
A fter being invited to testify,M r.Solom on expressed his serious reservations to you
about his appearance and its potential im pact on the due process rights of the parties to the case.
Y ou overruled those concerns and threatened to use com pulsory m eans to force M r.Solom on's
appearance.M r.Solom on attem pted to accom m odate your request by offering the testim ony of
another N L R B official w ho has no direct involvem ent in the pending B oeing case and provide
his ow n w ritten testim ony.Y ou rejected these offers.
M r.Solom on's reservations are clear,and w e share those reservations.R ather than
entirely dism issing those reservations,you show ultim ate disregard for them .In your June 14
letter,you stated:
[W ]hile Ido not believe this C om m ittee's oversight has any im plications for the due
process rights of the litigants,to the extent that it m ay,such a claim is for the affected
parties to raise ...in federalcourtafter a decision has been rendered by the agency....
[T ]he tim e to bring such a claim [of C ongressional intervention] is after a final agency
decision is rendered.T his is because a court's analysis w ill turn on w hether the decision-
m aker w as in fact influenced by C ongress.A s you know ,the case is pending.
In other w ords,you seem to believe that,even if your conduct am ounts to im proper
interference w ith constitutional rights,that should not be the C om m ittee's concern and instead
should be leftto the parties to litigate later.
B utitis the C om m ittee's concern,and it is the concern of all M em bers of C ongress that
w e conduct ourselves in a m anner that upholds the C onstitution.R ecognizing the risk of
interference, as w ell as the risk of the appearance of interference, a responsible chairm an w ould
take care to m inim ize these risks.R ather than creating a new basis for appealing any final
agency decision,increasing uncertainty,and shifting the costs of your interference onto private
parties,the C om m ittee should w ait until the case is no longer pending before calling the chief
prosecutor to testify ata hearing aboutthatcase.
O versight should',above all,be a tool for m aintaining the integrity of governm ent
institutions,their processes,and A m ericans'constitutional rights.W hat you are calling oversight
here is attem pting to do just the opposite.A t every turn,it threatens that integrity.
T here is still an opportunity for you to dem onstrate som e m odicum of concern about the
constitutionaland ethical im pactof w hat you are doing.W e strongly urge you to be circum spect
aboutthe nature of the questions you and other M em bers pose to the chief prosecutor of this live
NLRB-FOIA-00007267
T he H onorable D arrellIssa
Page 3
case at the hearing.A t a m inim um ,w e ask that you direct C om m ittee M em bers to lim it all
questions to M r.Solom on to general questions aboutthe N L R B and its processes,and not issues
related to the ongoing proceeding before the A dm inistrative L aw Judge.
T here is no dispute that C ongress has the authority to conduct rigorous oversight of
federal agencies,including the N L R B .B ut C ongress m ust not abuse this authority.W e are
confident that the C om m ittee's oversight responsibility can be fulfilled w ithout com prom ising
the integrity of N L R B proceedings or the due process rights of private parties.
Sincerely,
G eorge M iller
R anking M em ber
E ducation and W orkforce C om m ittee
. i
E lij.1 u m m in g s
67 3 )
R anking M em ber
C om m ittee on O versight& G overnm entR eform
NLRB-FOIA-00007268
U nited S tates G overnm ent
R egion 19
T elep h o n e: (206) 220-6315
2948 Jackson Federal B uilding
F acsim ile: (206) 220-6305
915 S econd A venue
E -m ail: m ara lo u ise.an zalo n e@ n lrb .g o v
, S eattle, W ash in g to n 98174-1078
M ay 13, 2011
V IA E M A IL IW K ilb ercagib son d u n n .com l
W illiam K ilberg, E sq.
G ibson, D unn & C rutcher LLP
1050 C onnecticut A venue, N .W .
W ash in g to n , D C 20036-5306
R e : T h e B o e in g C o m p a n y
C ase 19-C A -32431
D ear M r.K ilberg:
I en jo yed sp eakin g w ith yo u an d yo u r trial team th is w eek. I am p leased th at w e all
anticipate an am iable and highly professionalw orking relationship throughout this proceeding.
A s req u ested , attach ed fo r yo u r review an d co m m en t is th e w ritten d raft S ettlem en t
A greem ent and N otice to E m ployees that w e discussed. I w ould like to reiterate that the A cting
G eneral C ounsel rem ains open to considering any thoughts and suggestions you w ould like to
m ake.
In addition, as discussed, th e A cting G eneral C ou nsel w ould be h appy to consid er any
n o n -B o ard settlem en t th at is accep tab le to b o th yo u an d th e C h arg in g P arty. W e u n d erstan d
that, given the direct and indirect costs to your client due to the breadth of this m atter, this m ay
b e a p re fe ra b le a lte rn a tiv e . T o th a t e n d , it is th e A c tin g G e n e ra l C o u n s e l's c o n tin u e d h o p e th a t
th e p a rtie s m a k e a g ood-faith effort to explore a no n-B oard resolu tion, and w e stan d ready to
facilitate in any w ay w e m ay be of service.
Yours very tri,4y,
M ara-L o u ise A n zan e
C ounsel for the A cting G eneral C ounsel
A ttachm ent: S ettlem ent A greem ent and N otice to E m ployees
NLRB-FOIA-00007269
Pom -C om plaint
U pdated 4/11
U N ITED STA TES G O VER N M EN T
N A TIO N A L LA BO R R ELA TIO N S BO A R D
SE T T L E M E N T A G R E E M E N T
IN T H E M A T T E R O F T H E B O E IN G C O M PA N Y ,C A SE 19-C A -32431
The undersigned C harged Party and the undersigned C harging Party,in settlem entofthe above m atter,and subjectto the approvalofthe R egional
D irector for the N ationalLabor R elations Board,H ER EBY A G R EE A S FO LLO W S:
U pon approvalof this A greem ent and receipt of the N otices from the R egion,w hich m ay include N otices in m ore
PO ST IN G O F N O T IC E
than one language as deem ed appropriate by the R egionalD irector,the C harged Party w illpostim m ediately in conspicuous places in and aboutits
plant/office,including allplaces w here notices to em ployees/m em bers are custom arily posted,and m aintain for 60 consecutive days from the date of
posting,copies of the attached N otice (and versions in other languages as deem ed appropriate by the R egionalD irector) m ade a part hereof,said
N otices to be signed by a responsible officialofthe C harged Party and the date ofactualposting to be show n thereon.In the eventthis A greem entis
in settlem ent of a charge against a union,the union w illsubm it forthw ith signed copies of said N otice to the R egionalD irector w ho w illforw ard
them to the em ployer w hose em ployees are involved herein,for posting,the em ployer w illing,in conspicuous places in and about the em ployer's
plantw here they shallbe m aintained for 60 consecutive days from the date ofposting.Further,in the eventthatthe charged union m aintains such
bulletin boards at the facility of the em ployer w here the alleged unfair labor practices occurred,the union shallalso post N otices on each such
bulletin board during the posting period.
In addition to physicalposting ofpaper notices,notices shallbe distributed electronically,such as by e-m ail,posting on an intranetor an internetsite,
or other electronic m eans,if the C harged Party custom arily com m unicates w ith its em ployees or m em bers by such m eans.T he electronic posting
shallrem ain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date itw as originally posted.T he C harged Party w ille-m ailthe R egion's C om pliance O fficer
atjam es.lorange,nlrb.gov w ith a link to the electronic posting location on the sam e day as the posting.In the event that passw ords or other log-on
inform ation is required to access the electronic posting,the C harged Party agrees to provide such access inform ation to the R egion's C om pliance
O fficer.Ifthe N otice is distributed via e-m ail,the charged party w illforw ard a copy ofthe e-m aildistributed to the R egionalC om pliance O fficer.
C O M PL IA N C E W IT H N O T IC E
The C harged Party w illcom ply w ith allthe term s and provisions ofsaid N otice.
B A C K PA Y
W ithin 14 days from approvalofthis agreem entthe C harged Party w illm ake w hole the em ployee(s)nam ed below by paym entto
each ofthem ofthe am ountopposite each nam e.The C harged Party w illm ake appropriate w ithholdings for each nam ed em ployee.
SC O PE O F T H E A G R E E M E N T
T his A greem ent settles only the allegations in the above-captioned case(s),and does not constitute a
settlem entofany other case(s)or m atters.Itdoes notpreclude persons from filing charges,the G eneralC ounselfrom prosecuting com plaints,or the
Board and the courts from finding violations w ith respectto m atters w hich precede the date ofthe approvalofthis A greem entregardless ofw hether
such m atters are know n to the G eneralC ounselor are readily discoverable.The G eneralC ounselreserves the rightto use the evidence obtained in
the investigation and prosecution ofthe above-captioned case(s)for any relevantpurpose in the litigation ofthis or any other case(s),and a judge,the
Board and the courts m ay m ake findings offactand/or conclusions oflaw w ith respectto said evidence.
In the eventthe C harging Party fails or refuses to becom e a party to this A greem ent,and ifin the
R E FU SA L T O ISSU E C O M PL A IN T
R egionalD irector's discretion it w illeffectuate the policies of the N ationalL abor R elations A ct,the R egionalD irector shalldecline to issue a
C om plaintherein (or a new C om plaintifone has been w ithdraw n pursuantto the term s ofthis A greem ent),and this A greem entshallbe betw een the
C harged Party and the undersigned R egionalD irector.A review of such action m ay be obtained pursuant to Section 102.19 of the R ules and
R egulations ofthe Board ifa requestfor sam e is filed w ithin 14 days thereof.This A greem entshallbe nulland void ifthe G eneralC ounseldoes not
sustain the R egionalD irector's action in the eventofa review .A pprovalofthis A greem entby the R egionalD irector shallconstitute w ithdraw alof
any C om plaint(s)and N otice ofH earing heretofore issued in the above captioned case(s),as w ellas any answ er(s)filed in response.
A U T H O R IZ A T IO N T O PR O VID E C O M PL IA N C E IN FO R M A T IO N A N D N O T IC E S D IR E C T L Y T O C H A R G E D PA R T Y .
C ounselfor the C harged Party authorizes the R egionalO ffice to forw ard the cover letter describing the generalexpectations and
instructions to achieve com pliance,a conform ed settlem ent,originalnotices and a certification of posting directly to the C harged
Party.Ifsuch authorization is granted,C ounselw illbe sim ultaneously served w ith a courtesy copy ofthese docum ents.
N o
Y es
Initials
Initials
PE R FO R M A N C E
Perform ance by the C harged Party w ith the term s and provisions ofthis A greem entshallcom m ence im m ediately after the
A greem ent is approved by the R egionalD irector,or if the C harging Party does not enter into this A greem ent,perform ance shallcom m ence
im m ediately upon receiptby the,C harged Party ofnotice thatno review has been requested or thatthe G eneralC ounselhas sustained the R egional
D irector.
The C harged Party agrees thatin case ofnon-com pliance w ith any ofthe term s ofthis Settlem entA greem entby the C harged Party,and after 14 days
notice from the R egionalD irector ofthe N ationalLabor R elations Board ofsuch non-com pliance w ithoutrem edy by the C harged Party,the R egional
D irector w illreissue the com plaintpreviously issued on [date] in the instantcase(s).Thereafter,the G eneralC ounselm ay file a m otion for default
judgm entw ith the Board on the allegations ofthe com plaint.The C harged Party understands and agrees thatthe allegations ofthe aforem entioned
com plaint w illbe deem ed adm itted and its A nsw er to such com plaint w illbe considered w ithdraw n T he only issue that m ay be raised before the
Board is w hether the C harged Party defaulted on the term s ofthis Settlem entA greem ent.The Board m ay then,w ithoutnecessity oftrialor any other
NLRB-FOIA-00007270
4 .
Post-C om plaint
U psLied 4/11
proceeding,find allallegations of the com plaintto be true and m ake findings of factand conclusions of law consistentw ith those allegations adverse
to the C harged Party on allissues raised by the pleadings.T he B oard m ay then issue an order providing a fullrem edy for the violations found as is
appropriate to rem edy such violations.T he parties further agree thata U .S.C ourtof A ppeals Judgm entm ay be entered enforcing the B oard order ex
parte,after service or attem pted service upon C harged Party/R espondentatthe lastaddress provided to the G eneralC ounsel.
N O T IFIC A T IO N O F C O M PL IA N C E
T he undersigned parties to this A greem entw illeach notify the R egionalD irector in w riting w hat
steps the C harged Party has taken to com ply herew ith Such notification shallbe given w ithin 5 days,and again after 60 days,from the date of the
approval of this A greem ent.In the event the C harging Party does not enter into this A greem ent,initial notice shall be given w ithin 5 days after
notification from the R egional D irector that no review has been requested or that the G eneral C ounsel has sustained the R egional D irector.
C ontingentupon com pliance w ith the term s and provisions hereof,no further action shallbe taken in the above captioned case(s).
The B oeing C om pany
D ate
InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and A erospace
W orkers
B y:
D ate
D ate
D avid C am pbell,A ttorney
Schw erin C am pbellB arnard Iglitzin & LavittLLP
A pproved B y:
D ate
B y.
W illiam J.K ilberg,P.C .,A ttorney
G ibson D unn & C rutcher LLP
R ecom m ended B y:
M ara-Louise A nzalone,Field A ttorney
R ichard L.A hearn,R egionalD irector
NLRB-FOIA-00007271
N O T IC E T O
FO RM NLRB-4724
(11-02)
PO STED PU R SU A N T TO
APPROVED BY A RE(
NATIO NAL LABO R RELATIO NS BO ARD
F E D E R A L L A W G IV E S YO U T H E R IG H T T O :
^W ,
"
'."'% Form join or assist a union
C hoose representatives to bargain w ith us on your behalf
..
1
'
benefi
t-and
protecti
on
A ct together w ith other eM p1oyas for your:
W E W IL L N O T
NOT
W E W IL L N O T
W E W IL L N O T
C hoose not to engage in any of these protected activities
.,
in .any m inn'er interfere.w ith the axercise of:thefloregoing rights lo14'.'
our em ployees and m ore specifically;
W E W IL L
"'
.establish additional 787 D ream liner assernbly line's that:reduce or
'.elim in ate em p lo ym en t o p p o rtu n ities fO r o u r U n io n -rep resen ted
em ployees in retaliation for your U nion activities,including past or
fu tu re s trik e s a g a in s t u s . , - -
estab lish ad d itio n al 787 D ream lin er so u rcin g su p p ly lin es th at
red u ce o r elim in ate - em p lo ym en t o p p o rtu n ities fo r o u r U n io n -
rep resen ted em p lo yees in retaliatio n fo r yo u r U n io n activities,
including past or future strikes against us.
tell yo u th at o u r d ecisio n s reg ard in g th e p lacem en t o f ad d itio n al
787 D ream liner assem bly lines are m otivated by your authorization
of,participation in,or support for U nion activities,including past or '
future strikes against us.
W E W IL L N O T
tell yo u th at o u r d ecisio n s reg ard in g th e p lacem en t o f so u rcin g
su p p ly lin es fo r ad d itio n al ,787 D ream lin er assem b ly w o rk are
m otivated by your authonzation of, participation in, or support for
U nion activities,including past or future stnkes against us.
W E W IL L N O T
im ply that our aw ard of additionalor new 787 D ream liner assem bly
w ork is linked to our U nion-represented em ployees'authorization
of,participation in,or support for U nion activities,including past or
fu tu re strikes ag ain st u s, o r th at em p lo yees w ill b e less likely to
gain additio nal or new 787 D ream lin er assem b ly w ork because of
their U nion activities.
The NationalLaborRelations Board is an independentFederalagency created in 1935 to
em ployees wantunion representation and itinvestigates and rem edies unfairlaborpractic
charge orelection petition,you m ay speak confidentially to any agentwith the Board's Regioi
THISISANOFFICIALNOT
THIS NOTICE M UST REM AIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND1
THIS NOTICE OR COM PLIANCE W ITH ITS PROVISIONS M AY BE DIRECTED TO THE ABOVE REGIONAL OF
NLRB-FOIA-00007272
E M P L O YE E S
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
M AL DIRECTOR OF THE
AGENCY OF THE
.;;;;.1!i
3 v e " 7"
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
A ^.
" " '
AT!.
4;41.1
_1,104+ ;'
:
"
W E W ILL
:i:).ti'1,1'7.':*,
' '
'
7-0
- :.4
.
1,...,
N Y t;',4P .
"1 4 8 1 ,
O fX %
locate - th e seco n d 787 D ream lin er assem b li, lin e 'in E verett,
"7W a 'shington, and w e w illassem ble 787 D ream liner airplanes,using
A .. " '
' -
%N;;;?.,t:.,:",
parts and supplies from our S eattle,W ashingtsbn',,arid:P ortland,
_O regon,area ,sourcing suppily lines
cs
'II
,''
j4.
The B oeing C om panV
(Em ployer)
'
,4
By:
(Title)
D ate.
C ase 19-C A -32205
915 S econd A ve.,29 th Floor
S eattle, W A 98174
Telephone* (206) 220-6300
H ours of O peration: 8:15 a.m .to 4:45 p.m
force the N ationalLabor R elations A ctItconducts secret-ballotelections to determ ine w hether
by em ployers and unions.To find outm ore aboutyour rights under the A ctand how to file a
IO ffice setforth below.You m ay also obtain inform ation from the Board'swebsite:
w w w .nlrb.00v.
E AND M UST NOT BE DEFACED BY ANYONE.
ST NOT BE ALTERED,DEFACED,OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER M ATERIAL.ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING
:;E'S COM PLIANCE OFFICER,
NLRB-FOIA-00007273
Poq-C om plaint
U pdated 4/1).
U N IT E D ST A T E S G O V E R N M E N T
IN T H E M A T T E R O F T H E B O E IN G C O M PA N Y ,C A SE 19-C A -32431
T he undersigned C harged Party and the undersigned C harging Party,in settlem ent of the above m atter,and subject to the approval of the R egional
D irector for the N ational L abor R elations B oard,H E R E B Y A G R E E A S FO L L O W S
PO ST IN G O F N O T IC E
U pon approval of this A greem ent and receipt of the N otices from the R egion,w hich m ay include N otices in m ore
than one language as deem ed appropriate by the R egional D irector,the C harged Party w ill post im m ediately in conspicuous places in and about its
plant/office,including all places w here notices to em ployees/m em bers are custom arily posted,and m aintain for 60 consecutive days from the date of
posting,copies of the attached N otice (and versions in other languages as deem ed appropriate by the R egional D irector) m ade a part hereof,said
N otices to be signed by a responsible official of the C harged Party and the date of actual posting to be show n thereon In the event this A greem ent is
in settlem ent of a charge against a union,the union w ill subm it forthw ith signed copies of said N otice to the R egional D irector w ho w ill forw ard
them to the em ployer w hose em ployees are involved herein,for posting,the em ployer w illing,in conspicuous places in and about the em ployer's
plant w here they shall be m aintained for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting.Further,in the event that the charged union m aintains such
bulletin boards at the facility of the em ployer w here the alleged unfair labor practices occurred, the union shall also post N otices on each such
In addition to physical posting of paper notices,notices shall be distributed electronically,such as by e-m ail,posting on an intranet or an internee site,
or other electronic m eans,if the C harged Party custom arily com m unicates w ith its em ployees or m em bers by such m eans.T he electronic posting
shall rem ain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date it w as originally posted.T he C harged Party w ill e-m ail the R egion's C om pliance O fficer
at lam es lorang@ nlrb gov w ith a link to the electronic posting location on the sam e day as the posting.In the event that passw ords or other log-on
inform ation is required to access the electronic posting,the C harged Party agrees to provide such access inform ation to the R egion's C om pliance
O fficer.If the N otice is distributed via e-m ail,the charged party w ill forw ard a copy of the e-m ail distributed to the R egional C om pliance O fficer.
C O M PL IA N C E W IT H N O T IC E
T he C harged Party w ill com ply w ith all the term s and provisions of said N otice.
B A C K PA Y --- W ithin 14 days from approval of this agreem ent the C harged Party w ill m ake w hole the em ployee(s) nam ed below by paym ent to
each of them of the am ount opposite each nam e.T he C harged Party w ill m ake appropriate w ithholdings for each nam ed em ployee.
SC O P E O F T H E A G R E E M E N T
T his A greem ent settles only the allegations in the above-captioned case(s),and does not constitute a
settlem ent of any other case(s) or m atters.It does not preclude persons from filing charges,the G eneral C ounsel from prosecuting com plaints,or the
B oard and the courts from finding violations w ith respect to m atters w hich precede the date of the approval of this A greem ent regardless of w hether
such m atters are know n to the G eneral C ounsel or are readily discoverable.T he G eneral C ounsel reserves the right to use the evidence obtained in
the investigation and prosecution of the above-captioned case(s) for any relevantpurpose in the litigation of this or any other case(s),and a judge,the
B oard and the courts m ay m ake findings of fact and/or conclusions of law w ith respect to said evidence.
R E FU SA L T O ISSU E C O M P L A IN T
In the event the C harging Party fails or refuses to becom e a party to this A greem ent,and if in the
R egional D irector's discretion it w ill effectuate the policies of the N ational L abor R elations A ct, the R egional D irector shall decline to issue a
C om plaint herein (or a new C om plaint if one has been w ithdraw n pursuant to the term s of this A greem ent),and this A greem ent shall be betw een the
C harged P arty and the undersigned R egional D irector A review of such action m ay be obtained pursuant to Section 102 19 of the R ules and
R egulations of the B oard if a request for sam e is filed w ithin 14 days thereof.T his A greem ent shall be null and void if the G eneral C ounsel does not
sustain the R egional D irector's action in the event of a review A pproval of this A greem ent by the R egional D irector shall constitute w ithdraw al of
any C om plaint(s) and N otice of H earing heretofore issued in the above captioned case(s),as w ell as any answ er(s) filed in response.
A U T H O R IZ A T IO N T O PR O V ID E C O M PL IA N C E IN FO R M A T IO N A N D N O T IC E S D IR E C T L Y T O C H A R G E D PA R T Y .
C ounsel for the C harged P arty authorizes the R egional O ffice to forw ard the cover letter describing the general expectations and
instructions to achieve com pliance,a conform ed settlem ent,original notices and a certification of posting directly to the C harged
Party.If such authorization is granted,C ounsel w ill be sim ultaneously served w ith a courtesy copy of these docum ents.
N o
Y es
Initials
Initials
PE R FO R M A N C E
Perform ance by the C harged Party w ith the term s and provisions of this A greem ent shall com m ence im m ediately after the
A greem ent is approved by the R egional D irector, or if the C harging P arty does not enter into this A greem ent, perform ance shall com m ence
im m ediately upon receipt by the C harged Party of notice that no review has been requested or that the G eneral C ounsel has sustained the R egional
D irector.
T he C harged Party agrees that in case of non-com pliance w ith any of the term s of this Settlem ent A greem ent by the C harged Party,and after 14 days
notice from the R egional D irector of the N ational L abor R elations B oard of such non-com pliance w ithout rem edy by the C harged Party,the R egional
D irector w ill reissue the com plaint previously issued on [date] in the instant case(s).T hereafter,the G eneral C ounsel m ay file a m otion for default
judgm ent w ith the B oard on the allegations of the com plaint.T he C harged Party understands and agrees that the allegations of the aforem entioned
com plaint w ill be deem ed adm itted and its A nsw er to such com plaint w ill be considered w ithdraw n.T he only issue that m ay be raised before the
B oard is w hether the C harged Party defaulted on the term s of this Settlem ent A greem ent T he B oard m ay then,w ithout necessity of trial or any other
NLRB-FOIA-00007274
P ost-C om plaint
U pdated 4/11
.,
proceeding,find all allegations of the com plaint to be true and m ake findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent w ith those allegations adverse
to the C harged Party on all issues raised by the pleadings.T he B oard m ay then issue an order providing a full rem edy for the violations found as is
appropriate to rem edy such violations.T he parties further agree that a U S.C ourt of A ppeals Judgm ent m ay be entered enforcing the B oard order ex
parte,after service or attem pted service upon C harged Party/R espondent at the last address provided to the G eneral C ounsel.
N O T IFIC A T IO N O F C O M PL IA N C E - T he undersigned parties to this A greem ent w ill each notify the R egional D irector in w riting w hat
steps the C harged Party has taken to com ply herew ith.Such notification shall be given w ithin 5 days,and again after 60 days,from the date of the
approval of this A greem ent.In the event the C harging Party does not enter into this A greem ent,initial notice shall be given w ithin 5 days after
C ontingent upon com pliance w ith the term s and provisions hereof,no further action shall be taken in the above captioned case(s).
D ate
InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and A erospace
W orkers
B y:
D ate
D ate
D avid C am pbell,A ttorney
Schw erin C am pbell B arnard Iglitzin & L avitt L L P
A pproved B y.
D ate
B y
W illiam J.K ilberg,P.0 ,A ttorney
G ibson D unn & C rutcher L L P
R ecom m ended B y
M ara-L ouise A nzalone,Field A ttorney
R ichard L A hearn,R egional D irector
NLRB-FOIA-00007275
A llen , C o n sta n ce
F ro m :
P o m e ra n tz, A n n e
S e n t:
W e d n e sd a y, S e p te m b e r 0 1 , 2 0 1 0 5 :0 5 P M
T o :
A d vice ; K a rsh , A a ro n
C c:
A lb e rtse n , M a ry
S u b je ct:
R E : B o e in g C o m p a n y, 1 9 -C A -3 2 4 3 1 , S u b m issio n
Page 1 of2
A tta ch m e n ts: A D V .1 9 -C A -3 2 4 3 1 .B o e in g M e m o to A d vice a n d S p e cia l L it re d e cisio n a n d 1 0 j.d o c
A a ro n ,
M a ry fo rw a rd e d yo u r e -m a il to m e fo r re sp o n se . T h e file s in th is ca se a re q u ite vo lu m in o u s, a s yo u m a y h a ve
a lre a d y g a th e re d fro m th e su b m issio n . W e a n ticip a te h a vin g a ll th e m a te ria ls to yo u n e xt w e e k. M e a n w h ile , I
h a ve a tta ch e d a co p y o f th e su b m issio n in W o rd , w h ich M a ry in fo rm e d m e yo u h a d a ske d fo r, a n d b e lo w is th e
lin k to th e e le ctro n ic ca se file o n R e g io n 1 9 's H d rive : R 1 9 0 0 M \R 1 9 0 0 M \R E G IO N 1 9 0 C A S E S 1 1 9 -C A -3 2 4 3 1
B o e in g .
P le a se fe e l fre e to co n ta ct m e sh o u ld yo u re q u ire a n yth in g e lse .
A nne
G -)
Fro m : A lb e rtse n , M a ry
S e n t: W e d n e sd a y, S e p te m b e r 0 1 , 2 0 1 0 1 :5 5 P M
T o : P o m e ra n tz, A n n e
S u b je c t: F W : B o e in g C o m p a n y, 1 9 -C A -3 2 4 3 1 , S u b m issio n
M are Albertsem
7:7
C)t
? -
AO M
R e g io n 1 9 - S e a ttle , W A
(2 0 6 ) 2 2 0 -6 3 1 8
Fro m : A dvice
S e n t: W e d n e sd a y, S e p te m b e r 0 1 , 2 0 1 0 8 :4 2 A M
T o : A lb e rtse n , M a ry
S u b je c t: F W : B o e in g C o m p a n y, 1 9 -C A -3 2 4 3 1 , S u b m issio n
T h a n ks fo r th e su b m issio n . P le a se le t u s kn o w o n w h a t d a te a n d in w h a t fo rm yo u w ill b e se n d in g u s th e R e g io n a l
O ffice F ile s. A n d , to h e lp u s w ith th e a ssig n m e n t p ro ce ss, co u ld yo u a lso le t m e kn o w h o w vo lu m in o u s th e R O F s
a re a n d h o w m a n y th e re a re ?
T h a n ks -
A a ro n K a rsh
D A G C . A d vice
Fro m : A lb e rtse n , M a ry
S e n t: T u e sd a y, A u g u st 3 1 , 2 0 1 0 7 :2 1 P M
T o : A d vice ; In ju n ctio n L itig a tio n B ra n ch ; K e a rn e y, B a rry J.; K a tz, Ju d y
C c: B a n isze w ski, Jo se p h ; A h e a rn , R ich a rd L .; P o m e ra n tz, A n n e
9/2/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00007276
U n ite d S ta te s G o v e rn m e n t
N atio n al L a b o r R ela tio u g h p o ard
giF IC E O F T H E G E N E R W O U N S E L
S .A
IvA dvice M
r(j2-jz
FORRISTRIBUTION-
em orandum
DA T E
A p r il 1 1 , 2 0 1 1
TO
R i c h a r d L . A h e a r n , R e g i o n a l Di r e c t o r
Region 19
FROM
Barry J. Kearney, Associate General Counsel
Di v i s i o n o f A d v i c e
SU B JE C T
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
524-5060
524-8307-1600
524-8307-5300
530 - 6050-0825-3300
530 - 6067-4011-4200
530 - 6067-4011-4600
530- 60 67-4 011-77 00
530-8054-7000
775-8731
The Region submitted this case for advice on several
issues relating to the Employer's 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 unit's 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
unit's 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
Employer's coercive and threatening statements; and a Section
8(a)(3) violation based on the Employer's 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 Employer's
decision to "offload" unit work to a facility not covered by
the agreement. To remedy the chilling effect of Boeing's
Section 8(a)(1) statements, the Region should request, in
addition to the traditional remedies, a notice reading by a
high-level Boeing official. To remedy the Section 8(a)(3)
NLRB-FOIA-00007277
Case 19 -C A - 3 2 4 3 1 .
-2
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.
FA C T S
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 (IAN) and certain IAN
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 -COrripany

-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[.t" 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-00007278
Case 19 - CA-32431411
-3
Bo e i n g I n t r o d u c e s t h e 7 8 1 " D r e a m l i n e r "
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 Union's bargaining position. On October 6, 2008, Boeing's
stock dropped to a four-year low. That same day, CEO Jim
McNerney sent-a-long-e-mad-1- to - Boeing -employees
strike. McNerney stated that he understood and shared "the
frustration so many of you feel when we don't have the whole
team together working to meet the commitments we've 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 Boeing's 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-00007279
Case 19-CA-32431410
-4
unreliable supplier to our customers - who ultimately provide
job security by buying our airplanes." 1
The following day, Boeing's Vice President for Government
and Community Relations Fred Kiga spoke at an aerospace
c o n f e r e n c e i n E v e r e t t . I n a Seattle Times article, he was
quoted as stating, "We can't afford to become known as the
strike zone[.]" He reportedly also told the conference that
"labor unrest" could drive Boeing's 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 Boeing's Senior Vice
President of Government Operations; he had informed her that
the CEO was "sick and tired" of the union's strikes and was
looking to - put the - second - 787- iine -rersewhere. -
On April 16, Boeing and TAM 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
Di s t r i c t 7 5 1 DB R T o m W r o b l e w s k i . T h i s w a s t h e f i r s t
opportunity for the parties to meet since the strike had
ended. McNerney and Buffenbarger were the lead speakers.
McNerney stated that Boeing's customers were losing confidence
1 In his e-mail, CEO McNerney exaggerated the number of times
that the Union had struck. In actuality, prior strikes
occurred in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
1989 (48 days), 1995 (69 days), and 2005 (28 days).
2 Dates are in 2009 ,unless otherwise noted.
NLRB-FOIA-00007280
Case 19-CA-32431410
-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 IAN
Aerospace Coordinator Mark Blondin met on June 23 in Seattle
with Conner and Boeing's 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 Boeing's 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. IAN
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 Boeing's 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 Vought's 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-00007281
Case 19 - CA-32431411
-6
without intermediaries." 3 B o e i n g a l s o i s s u e d a F A Q d o c u m e n t
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
a s s e m b l y l i n e . F o r e x a m p l e ,
The Post and the Courier reported
that South Carolina's "low unionization rate is viewed as an
a d v a n t a g e i n t h e 7 8 7 c h a s e { . ] " A n a r t i c l e i n t h e 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 -. A t t h e e n d o f t h e
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 Boeing's
permit filings in South Carolina, the Puget Sound Business
Journal-characterized this vote as "[a] wkid card" in Boeing's
decision about where to locate the second line. On September
2, Kight presented an hour-long video on Boeing's 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?
... There's 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-00007282
Case 19-CA-3243140
- 7 -
customers can't live with it anymore. So we've 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 that's what we're 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 IAN International President
Buffenbarger on September 21 that Boeing planned to make a
decision on the second line's location by the end of October
and wanted the Union's 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-again-St
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 Boeing's 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-00007283
Case 19-CA-32431f"
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
s i x m o n t h - advance - notice - and -good-fa -ith- bargainirig over any
decision to establish an assembly operation for any next
generation product. Boeing asserts that this "rough draft"
was the Union's "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-00007284
Case 19-CA-32431 410
-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 don't blame this totally on the union. We just
haven't figured out a way -- the mix doesn't -- isn't
working well yet. So, we've 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 Union's 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 - ca-lled - 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-Ca-rol-ina-were--
moving quickly to facilitate the second line's placement in
their State. On October 23, North Charleston approved
Boeing's request for a storm water permit, and the State of
South Carolina approved Boeing's overall site plan. On
October 27, the South Carolina legislature, in a special
session, approved $170 million in taxpayer-backed bonds for
Boeing's startup costs and tax breaks totaling $450 million in
exchange for Boeing's 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
Boeing's 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-00007285
Case 19-CA-32431
- 1 0 -
the Union's economic demands were too costly and its
insistence upon neutrality and job security were unacceptable.
The Union asserts, however, that Boeing's failure to submit
any proposals, its rejection of the Union's serious efforts to
address Boeing's 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.
Bo e i n g A n n o u n c e s i t s D e c i s i o n s t o L o c a t e t h e S e c o n d L i n e i n
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
finalanalysis,-this-came down - to - ensuring - our -

long-te -rm
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-assembl-y-- -
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 o n De c e m b e r 8 d i s c u s s e d t h i s a n n o u n c e m e n t . T h e
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 what's 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-00007286
Case 19-CA-32431
0
11 -
On March 2, 2010, a Seattle Times journalist conducted a
videotaped interview of Boeing's new Commercial Airplanes CEO,
Jim Albaugh. (Albaugh had moved over from his position as
I n t e g r a t e d De f e n s e S y s t e m s C E O t o r e p l a c e C a r s o n . ) T h e
interviewer asked Albaugh some "hard questions" on behalf of
the Washington community about Boeing's decision to locate the
second 787 line in Charleston. In explaining Boeing's
decision, Albaugh repeatedly referenced the Union's 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 didn't
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]e've had strikes three out of the last four times
we've had a labor negotiation with the IAM. ... And
we've got to get to a position where we can ensure
our, customers that every three years they're 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:
There's no question that whenever you go to a green field
site, there's 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 Union's strike activity. Boeing had alleged elsewhere
that the 2008 strike reduced its earnings by $1.8 million, far
NLRB-FOIA-00007287
Case 19-CA-32431
III
- 12 -
At one point, Albaugh summed up the basis of Boeing's
decision as follows:
[t]he overriding factor was not the business climate.
And it was not the wages we're 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]e'll 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-Boeing!s_transfer__of work_ from_an
experienced, unionized workforce to a new, nonunion facility.
Boeing's decision was motivated by antiunion considerations.
From the time of the Union's 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
intranet sitein the media, and in talks
employees, on
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-00007288
Case 19-CA-32431
411
- 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. Boeing's 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 necessar_y_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 Boeing's coercive and threatening
statements to employees on the intranet and through the media;
and a violation of Section 8(a)_(3) based upon Boeing's
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
Boeing's 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 Boeing's 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-00007289
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -
I. T h e E m p l o y e r V i o l a t e d S e c t i o n 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 T h e C o u r t
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
employer's belief as to demonstrably probable consequences
beyond his control[.]" 6 O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , " ' t h r e a t s o f
economic reprisal to be taken solely on [the employer's] 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 F a c e d w i t h a u n i o n o r g a n i z i n g d r i v e ,
the employer gave multiple speeches touting its "two-source
supplier strategy." 9 T h e e m p l o y e r s t a t e d t h a t i t h a d
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 plant's nonunion
status was the reason it had experienced a rise in
employment. 10 A n d t h e e m p l o y e r c o n v e y e d t h e m e s s a g e t h a t t h e
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 T h e B o a r d c o n c l u d e d t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e
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."- 2 T h e B o a r d e x p r e s s l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d a n e m p l o y e r ' s
right to take defensive action when threatened with an
5 See NLRB V. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S -. 575, 618 -(19-69)--
6 Ibid.
7 Id. at 619 (citation omitted).
8 See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
9 See id. at 520.
10 See id. at 520-21.
11 See id. at 521.
12 See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00007290
Case 19-CA-32431 0
- 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 T h u s , t e l l i n g
employees that they will lose their jobs if they join a strike
violates Section 8(a) (1). 15 S i m i l a r l y , i n K r o g e r C o . , t h e
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 R a t h e r , a n e m p l o y e r ' s p r e d i c t i o n s o f
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.
mem. 50 F.3d 1037 (11 th Cir. 1995); General Electric Co., 321
NLRB 662, fn. 5 (1996), enf. denied 117 F.3d 627 (D.C. Cir.
1997).
15 A e l c o C o r p . , 3 2 6 N L R B 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 5 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . S e e a l s o Do r s e y
Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB 835, 851 (1999), enfd, in pertinent_
part 233 F.3d 831 - (4 tn Cir. 2000) (threat to close the plant if
the employees went out on strike).
16 3 1 1 N L R B a t 1 2 0 0 . S e e a l s o G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c C o . , 3 2 1 N L R B
at 662, fn. 5 (employer conveyed to employees that
unionization could result in the withholding of further
investment in the plant or its closure).
17 See, 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 produptions and equipment elsewhere because customers
would not be able to afford employer's facilities if employees
unionized).
18 Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00007291
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 A n e m p l o y e r m a y
also reference the p o s s ib ility that unionization, including
strikes, might harm relationships with consumers, as opposed
t o p r e d i c t i n g " u n a v o i d a b l e c o n s e q u e n c e s . " 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 B y c o n t r a s t , r e p o r t e r s u m m a r i e s c a n n o t f o r m t h e
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 .2 1 . Du r i n g t h e c a l l ,
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 H i s c o m m e n t s w e r e i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f r o m t h e
comments regarding a "two-source supplier strategy" found
violative in General Electric.

23
(2) Boeing's 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 Boeing's message to employees was that Boeing had
19
- -
5 -
id-. 339 NLRB at - 1137.
E.g., Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc., 342 NLRB
1074, 1075-76 (2004) (employer "did not predict unavoidable
consequences").
20
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).
22
These same comments were quoted in the
23
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
S e a ttle T im e s.
NLRB-FOIA-00007292
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 S e a ttle T im e s

and
the P u g e t S o u n d B u sin e ss J o u rn a l 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
Employer's 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 Employer's 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 Boeing's 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-effecta---Instead-of----
24 The Region should insure that this message was communicated
to employees.
25 T h e a u t h o r s o f t h e s e a r t i c l e s w i l l n e e d t o t e s t i f y . I f
they resist testifying, and it becomes necessary to seek
subpoena enforcement, the Region should contact Advice.
26 Vice President Kight's video-taped comments that Boeing's
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 Boeing's website on September 2, outside
the Section 10(b) period.
NLRB-FOIA-00007293
Case 19-CA-32431 4 0
- 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, Boeing's 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 Boeing's 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 I n
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 employer's
retaliatory motive. 28
Moreover, the Board specifically has held that an
employer-thay-not,- for-unlawfully-motivated-reasons,-d-ivert -
unit work to a nonunion plant even where there is no immediate
impact on unit employees. 29 I n A d a i r S t a n d i s h C o r p . , t h e
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 S i m i l a r l y , i n C o l d H e a d i n g C o . , t h e e m p l o y e r
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
in pertinent part 912 F.2d 854 (6 th Cir. 1990).
30 See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00007294
Case 19-CA-32431 411
- 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 Boeing's 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 employer's discouragement of
its employees' participation in a legitimate strike
constitutes discouragement of union membership within the
meaning of Section 8(a)(3). 32 T h i s a p p l i e s t o e m p l o y e r
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 I n d e e d , t h e B o a r d r e c e n t l y r e a f f i r m e d
that an employer violates the Act when it acts to prevent
future protected activity. 35 C o m p a r i n g s u c h c o n d u c t t o t h e
31 S e e 332 NLRB 956, fn. 5, 975-76 (2000).

See also
Associated Constructors, 325 NLRB 998, 998-1000 (1998), enfd.
sub nom. O'Dovero v. NLRB, 193 F.3d 532 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
(double-breasted -eMpldyer unlawfully diverted -

work from Its
union entity to its nonunion entity in retaliation for the
union's efforts to organize the nonunion entity and to escape
the collective-bargaining agreement).
32 Capehorn Industry, 336 NLRB 364, 365 (2001).
33 See id. at
-365-67 (employer violated - Section -8(a-)(3)
to immediately reinstate strikers upon u n c o n d i t i o n a l
failing to
offer to return to work where there was no legitimate business
justification for entering into a permanent subcontract).
34 S e e 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 Parexel International, LLC, 356 NLRB No. 82, slip op.
at 4 and cases cited therein (2011) (employer violated Section
NLRB-FOIA-00007295
Case 19-CA-32431
111
- 20 -
III
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.""
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 Court's
decision in NLRB v. Brown Food Store 37 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." 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."
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."
Boeing's 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 employer's 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. (citation omitted).
37
380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38
See id. at 283-85.
39
See id. at 284.
40 See ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00007296
Case 19-CA-32431 4 0
- 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 employer's business
justification -- to avoid investing money in employees who
were going to cease work later -- was "neither legitimate nor
substantial. "42
Boeing's concession that choosing South Carolina will
result in "duplication" and economic "inefficiencies" further
demonstrates that Boeing's 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, Boeing's claim that it took this action to avoid
strike disruptions is belied by Boeing's rejection of the
Union's_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.
_ Wealso_conclude that Boeing's conduct was_"inherently_
destructive of employee interests." 43 C o n d u c t i s " i n h e r e n t l y
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
See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5 th Cir.
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
41
42
See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
See NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26, 33
(1967) (citation omitted).
43
NLRB-FOIA-00007297
Case 19-CA-32431 4 0
- 22 -
intent. f44
I n I n t e r n a t i o n a l P a p e r C o . , t h e B o a r d s e t f o r t h
four "fundamental guiding principles" for determining whether
employer conduct is inherently destructive of employee
rights. 45 F i r s t , t h e B o a r d l o o k s t o t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e h a r m
to employees' Section 7 rights. Second, the Board considers
the temporal impact of the employer's 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 employer's bargaining
position as opposed to conduct demonstrating "hostility to the
process of collective bargaining." And finally, the Board
assesses whether the employee's conduct discourages collective
bargaining by "making it seem a futile exercise in the eyes of
the employees." 46 E v e n i f t h e e m p l o y e e ' s c o n d u c t i s
inherently destructive, the Board weighs the employer's
asserted business justification against the invasion of
employee rights. 47
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, Boeing's
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 Union's most effective
economic weapon, and for the Union itself, and thereby hinder
_any_future_collective_bargaining.__ThirdBoeingLs_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
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- 2-3-3- FT3d- 8-31-
(4th C i r . 2 0 0 0 ) .
44
See 319 LRB 1253, 1269 (1995), enf. denied 115 F.3d 1045
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
45
46
Id. at 1269-70 (citations omitted).
47 Id. at 1273 (finding no justification for employer's
"inherently destructive" conduct of permanently subcontracting
bargaining unit work during a lawful lockout). See also
Dorsey Trailers, 327 NLRB at 863-64 (employer's closing of
facility during strike and relocation of unit work to newly
purchased facility outside the union's jurisdiction was
"inherently destructive" of employee rights).
NLRB-FOIA-00007298
Case 19-CA-32431 i s
- 23 -
exercise without the possibility of a strike to support the
Union's position at the bargaining table.
The unavoidable consequence of Boeing's 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
employer's 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 T h e B o a r d f o u n d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e r ' s s t a t e d
reason__that_it wanted_to enhance_ita bargaining_ position
with the union -- was an admission that it withheld the
increase because employees chose union representation.

49
Likewise, Boeing's 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, _Boeing's
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).
I I I . T h e U n i o n W a i v e d i t s R i g h t t o Ba r g a i n
The Union's 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 Boeing's
decision was a mandatory subject of bargaining; and (2) if so,
48
See 355 NLRB No. 199, slip op. at 3-4 (2010).
49
See id., slip op. at 3.
NLRB-FOIA-00007299
Case 19-CA-32431 III
- 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 . M a n d a t o r y S u b j e c t o f Ba r g a i n i n g
Under Dubuque Packing Co., a decision to relocate unit
work that is not accompanied by a basic change in the
employer's 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 employer's decision involved a change in the
enterprise's scope and direction. 51 A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e
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 employer's decision. 52 A p p l y i n g t h e Du b u q u e t e s t , t h e
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 F o r e x a m p l e , i n Q u i c k w a y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , I n c . ,
50 Provena St. Joseph Medical Center, 350 NLRB 808 (2007).
51 303 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-00007300
Case 19-CA-32431 4 0
- 25 -
the Board found that the employer's 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 L i k e w i s e , i n S p u r l i n o M a t e r i a l s , L L C , t h e
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 employer's 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 A n d i n Do r s e y T r a i l e r s , I n c . , t h e B o a r d
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 T h e w o r k
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 Boeing's operation or any change in the enterprise's scope
or direction;__ Boeing_ does_ not _ intend_ to_ change_its_ production
methods or its products. 59 B o e i n g d i d n o t d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t
labor costs were not a factor in the decision. In fact,
according to Boeing's 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).
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).
58 See 321 NLRB at 617.
59 See Owens-Brockway Plastic Products, 311 NLRB at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00007301
Case 19-CA-32431 0
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009. Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
- 26 -
was willing to make concessions on both
issues during negotiations in the fall of
we conclude that Boeing's decision as to
second 787 line was a mandatory subject of
B. W a i v e r o f t h e R i g h t t o Ba r g a i n
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 T h e B o a r d w i l l
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 I n i n t e r p r e t i n g
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 Judge's 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 Employer's
operations or phases thereof (subcontracting)[. ]64 T h i s
right_waa_"vested,exclustvely_in_the.Emplayer"_and was_not
60 See Provena St. Joseph Medical Center, 350 NLRB at 810-11.
61 See id. at 812, fn. 19.
62 See Johnson-Bateman Co., 295 NLRB 180, 184-89 (1989) (no
waiver of- rlght to-barga-in-about-drug-fa-IcohoI-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).
63 See, 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").
64 See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00007302
Case 19-CA-32431 4 0
- 27 -
subject to arbitration. 65 A l t h o u g h a n o t h e r c o n t r a c t u a l
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."
In this case, Section 21.7 of the parties' agreement
"specifically, precisely, and plainly" 67 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 Union's 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. at 1260.
66
Id. at 1262.
67 S e e A l l i s o n C o r p . , 3 3 0 N L R B a t 1 3 6 5 .
See 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
(USA) Mineral Sands, Inc. v. NLRB, 281 F.3d 442, 450 (4 th 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").
68
NLRB-FOIA-00007303
- 28 -
that the waiver cannot extend to work transferred after the
contract's 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 T h e U n i o n ' s e s t o p p e l a r g u m e n t
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, Boeing's request to negotiate mid-term changes
to the parties' agreement did not subject it to the
traditional Section 8(a)(5) bargaining obligations.

70 A b s e n t
a contractual reopener provision, parties are under no
obligation to bargain over proposals for mid-term
modifications. 71 F o r t h i s r e a s o n , w e d o n o t r e a c h t h e
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
6 9 Thus, if there- is - a d u t y t o b a r g a i n o v e r a r e l o c a t i o n - -
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 employer's 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).
See 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).
70
See Boeing Co., 337 NLRB 758, 763 (2002) (employer did not
incur bargaining obligation by agreeing to union's 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
NLRB-FOIA-00007304
Case 19-CA-32431
29 -
111
rights and gain assurance that Boeing will respect those
rights. 72 T h e n o t i c e r e a d i n g i s p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e i f
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
72 See, e.g., Homer D. Bronson Co., 349 NLRB 512, 515 (2007),
enfd. 273 F. App'x 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 9 2 0 ( D. C . C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( e m p l o y e e s w i l l p e r c e i v e t h a t " t h e
Respondent and its managers are bound by the requirements of
the Act").
73 Three 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-00007305
Case 19-CA-32431 (II
- 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
ROFs - 9
H:ADV.19 - CA-32431.Response2.Boeing.dlw
74 At this time, we do not reach a decision on the Union's
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 Boeing's 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-00007306
U n ite d S ta te s G o v e rn m e n t
SE
N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n .t B o a rd
O A F IC E O F T H E G E N E R O U N S E L
A .N dvice M
FORBISTRIBUTION-
em orandum
D A T E :
A p ril 1 1 , 2 0 1 1
TO :
Ri c h a r d L . A h e a r n , Re g i o n a l D i r e c t o r
Region 19
FR O M :
Division of Advice
su aT cr:
T h e B o e i n g C o m p a n y
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
524-5060
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
T h e Re g i o n s u b m i t t e d t h i s c a s e f o r a d v i c e o n s e v e r a l
l i n e . S p e c i f i c a l l y t h e Re g i o n r e q u e s t e d a d v i c e a s t o w h e t h e r :
(1) the Employer violated Section 8(a) (1) by threatening to
Employer violated Section 8(a)(3) by deciding to place the
W e c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e Re g i o n s h o u l d i s s u e a c o m p l a i n t
a c t i v i t y . H o w e v e r , t h e Re g i o n s h o u l d d i s m i s s t h e S e c t i o n
S e c t i o n 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) s t a t e m e n t s , t h e Re g i o n s h o u l d r e q u e s t , i n
NLRB-FOIA-00007307
C a se 1 9 -C A -3 2 4 3 1 0
-2
Boeing to maintain the surge line in the Puget Sound area
seven planes on the first line

Thus, the Region should seek
currently exist, in the Puget Sound and Portland facilities
FA C T S
engaged primarily in developing and producing military and _ 1
commercial aircraft Boeing has a long-established collective-
Machinists and Aerospace Workers (TAM) and certain IAM
District and Local Lodges

The parties' current collective-
areas, the Puget Sound area in Washington, Portland, Oregon,
and Wichita, Kansas
Section 21 7 of that agreement, entitled
to Boeing proposals to subcontract or "offload" unit work
"[O]ffloading work" is defined as "moving work from one
Company-facility-to another C-O r r y f a -c-flif-y -fia Colierea by
this Agreement[ ]" Less stringent notice requirements apply
ten employees
In addition, the notice and review process
(a) through (d), including "[d]ecisions to_subcontract or
prevent production schedule-sl -i p p a g e h t "

Sectron -21 -7
concludes with the following language
Anything in this Section 21 7 to the contrary
notwithstanding, it is agreed that
the Company has
it is to be performed, which right's shall not be subject
to arbitration
NLRB-FOIA-00007308
Case 19 - C A - 3 2 4 3 1 0
collective - bargaining agreement. During those negotiations,
Company officials noted the need for a second assembly

_line_
but did not discuss the matter further'.
McNerney sent-a-Iong-e-mail to - Boeing - e m p l o y e e s b o u t t h e
- -
NLRB-FOIA-00007309
Case 19 - CA-32431410
-4
c o n f e r e n c e i n E v e r e t t . I n a Seattle Times article, he was
looking to - put the - second 787 Iine elsewhere.
On April 16, Boeing and IAM officials held their annual
Management- & Operations Ray ConneT. IAM representatives -
District 751 DBR Tom Wroblewski. This was the first
In his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
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).
2 Dates are in 2009 unless otherwise noted.
NLRB-FOIA-00007310
Case 19-CA-32431 410
future st'rikes
He said that the parties had to come up with
a way to stop having labor disputes

The general theme was
to avoid the problems of the past
As a follow-up to this summit, Wroblewski and TAM
Doug Kight
The parties focused on how to build a better
relationship and improve communication While Wroblewski had
labor relations
Wroblewski thought that one of the purposes
of the meeting was to get to know Conner At a subsequent
supplier issues
For the first time, Conner raised the
their aircraft on time
the Vought plant in North Charleston, South Carolina
IAM
maintenance, and quality employees

Boeing agreed to
bargaining agreement
a long-term contract with the Union Boeing told the
Congressmen that South Carolina was the main competitor
Wroblewski, Blondin, Kight, and Conn4r met again twice in
on July 7 and July 23

At each of these meetings,
Boeing to be viable
They stated that Boeing needed a long-
customers
At this point, Boeing was two years behind
a result of supplier and software problems
July,
employee filed a decertification petition
During August,
- \,
NLRB-FOIA-00007311
Case 19 - C A - 3 2 4 3 1 4 1 0
-6
w i t h o u t i n t e r m e d i a r i e s . " 3 Bo e i n g a l s o i s s u e d a F A Q d o c u m e n t
d e c i s i o n c o u l d i n f l u e n c e w h e r e Bo e i n g l o c a t e d t h e s e c o n d 7 8 7
a s s e m b l y l i n e . F o r e x a m p l e ,
The Post and the Courier repor te d
a d v a n t a g e i n t h e 7 8 7 c h a s e [ . ] " A n a r t i c l e i n t h e
Charleston
Business Journal a s s e r t e d t h a t C h a r l e s t o n m i g h t b e a b e t t e r
O n A u g u s t 2 6 , Bo e i n g e - m a i l e d i t s m a n a g e r s a n d h u m a n
second 787 line but that it had not yet made a decision as to
w h e r e t o l o c a t e t h e s e c o n d l i n e . T h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , Bo e i n g
o n l y w a y Bo e i n g w o u l d p l a c e t h e s e c o n d l i n e i n W a s h i n g t o n w a s
Bo e i n g s u g g e s t e d a s e r i e s o f t h r e e - y e a r a g r e e m e n t s w i t h a n
longer agreement than the current four-year contract in return
for some - sort - of- n e u t r a I i t y a g r e e m e n t . A t t h e e n d o f t h e
w a s s c h e d u l e d f o r S e p t e m b e r 1 0 . I n r e p o r t i n g o n Bo e i n g ' s
p e r m i t f i l i n g s i n S o u t h C a r o l i n a , t h e P u g e t S o u n d Bu s i n e s s
Journal-chal. a c t e r i z e d - tTlis- vote - as -"[ at - wi ld - card" - inBbeft
2 , K i g h t p r e s e n t e d a n h o u r - l o n g v i d e o o n Bo e i n g ' s w e b s i t e
( l a t e r q u o t e d i n a S e p t e m b e r 2 9 a r t i c l e i n t h e Seattle Times).
s t u d i e d , n o d e c i s i o n h a s b e e n m a d e . Bu t t r u t h f u l l y , i t
Bo e i n g u n i l a t e r a l l y c h a n g e d i t s a c c e s s r u l e s b u t w i t h d r e w t h e
NLRB-FOIA-00007312
Case 19 - CA-32431411
- 7 -
do.
Portland, CEO McNerney wrote to IAM International President

Term Agreement
for giving up the rtght -

to -
trik6, the parties would need to
_wanted, and - that-dn -effect - it - wa-s- negottattng against: EtS

-eff7 -
NLRB-FOIA-00007313
Case 19 - C A - 3 2 4 3 1 4 1 0
-8
Carolina.
towards-the end of the contract; annual increases in pension
six-month advance-notice-and-good-faith bargaining-ove-r.Thriy
get back to him.
NLRB-FOIA-00007314
Case 19-CA-32431 4 0
-9
couple of weeks."
Conner stated that the Union's economic terms and demand for
not respond--
Michals -ki- calied - Senior - Vice -----
Meanwhile, _the_governmental_bodies_in-South-Ca-roldna-were-
NLRB-FOIA-00007315
Case 19-CA-32431
- 1 0 -
Directors had just approved the selection of North Charleston.
decision to locate the second line in Charleston would
final analysis, this-came-down-to-ensuringour-long-term
contract_separate suppliers for-the-South-Carolinaassembly----
line.
A s a r e s u l t , e m p l o y e e s i n t h e P u g e t S o u n d a n d P o r t l a n d
Journal o n D e c e m b e r 8 d i s c u s s e d t h i s a n n o u n c e m e n t . T h e
customers."
NLRB-FOIA-00007316
Case 19-CA-32431
411
_ 11 _
Integrated Defense Systems CEO to replace Carson.) The
Charleston.
-
-
our customers that every three years they're not
- -
When asked whether_going to Charleston, in light of the

4
NLRB-FOIA-00007317
Case 19-CA-32431
4 0
- 12 -
ACTION
This-case involves- Boeings_ transfer_of_work_from_an_
experienced unionized workforce to a new, nonunion facility.
_ employeeson_its .intranet site, in the media, and in talks
with the Union, B o e i n g t i e d , i t s a b i l i t y t o c o m p e t e t o t h e
avoidance of future strike'activity. Then, when Boeing
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00007318
Case 19-CA-32431
i s
- 13 -
incentives for Boeing, Boeing called off negotiations and
m o n t h s . Ra t h e r , t h e d e l a y r e s u l t e d p r i m a r i l y f r o m i t s o w n
problems.
_ running-, wdth-the-space, the necessary.equipmentand_a_ _
and a violation of Section 8(a1(3)_ based upon Boeing's
NLRB-FOIA-00007319
Case 19-CA-32431
ilo
- 14 -
threats of reprisals violative of Section 8(a)(1).

5 T h e C o u r t
employment. 10 A n d t h e e m p l o y e r c o n v e y e d t h e m e s s a g e t h a t t h e
planned to introduce. 11 T h e B o a r d c o n c l u d e d t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e
employer might want to insure itself against production
activity. 12
T h e B o a r d e x p r e s s l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d a n e m p l o y e r ' s
5 S e e N L RB v. Gissel Packing CO., 395 - M.S: 575,-- 618- a 9 6 9 r : ------
6 Ibid.
8 See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
9 See id. at 520.
10 See id. at 520-21.
11 See id. at 521.
12 See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00007320
- 15 -
date. "13
The Board repeatedly has held that an employer violates
Section 8(a)(1) by threatening to withhold work opportunities

violates Section 8(a)(1). 15 S i m i l a r l y , i n K r o g e r C o . , t h e
unlawful threats. 17 Ra t h e r , a n e m p l o y e r ' s p r e d i c t i o n s o f

18
13 See id. at 522, fn. 6.
1997).
15 A e l c o C o r p . , 3 2 6 N L RB 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 5 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . S e e a l s o D o r s e y
Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB 835, 851 (1999), enfd._in pertinent_
part 233 F:3d 831 -74 th Cir. 2000) (threat to close the plant if
16 3 1 1 N L RB a t 1 2 0 0 . S e e a l s o G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c C o . , 3 2 1 N L RB
to move productions and equipment elsewhere because customers
unionized).
18 Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00007321
Case 19-CA-32431 4 0
- 16 -
contingency plans in the event of a strike. 19 A n e m p l o y e r m a y
on its intranet for employees on October 21. During the call,
violative in General Electric. 23

_
.
1 9 -See
id". - 339 - NLRB a t 1137 -.
,
Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc., 342 NLRB
E. y
g.,
consequences").
20
c i
.
Sheet Metal Workers Local 15 (Brandon Regional Medical
21
22
These same comments were quoted in the
23
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00007322
Case 19-CA-32431 4 0
- 17 -

24

and
strikes 25
activity. 26
II.
Employe' acted-in-retaIiation for -the-employees' Union -
Sound_employees_w_ith_consequent_adverse-effects-- Instead-of---
to employees.
Vice President Kight's video-taped coMments that Boeing's

26
NLRB-FOIA-00007323
Case 19-CA-32431 411
- 18 -
implemented.

27 I n
-employer-ma-y-not, for-unlawfully-motivated reasons,-divert-
impact on unit employees. 29 I n A d a i r S t a n d i s h C o r p . , t h e
_ _new_work from Standish" and therefore violated Section_8_(a)._(3)___
e m p l o y e e s . 30 S i m i l a r l y ,
in Cold Heading Co., the employer
28 Ibid.
30 See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00007324
Case 19-CA-32431
411
- 19 -
representative sought to affiliate with the UAW.

31
31 See 332 NLRB 956, fn. 5, 975-76 (2000).

See also
(double-breasted -erdployer -unlawfully -diVerfed Work- ffbni -it8 -
at 365-67 (employer - violated-

Section 8(a)(3) by -
failing to immediately reinstate strikers upon unconditional
- 3 3 - S e a -id:
34 See Century Air Freight, 284 NLRB 730, 732 (1987) (employer
1322, 1374 (1996) (employer violated Section 8(a) (3) by
NLRB-FOIA-00007325
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
activity." 36
strike. 38 S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e C o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e u s e o f a
an impasse in negotiations was not an unfair labor practice.

39
36
37
380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38
See id. at 283-85.
39
See id. at 284.
See
ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00007326
Case 19-CA-32431 4 0
- 21 -
substantial. "42
Union's_efforts_to_ negotiate_a_longterm_no_stri.ke_agreement.
striking.
We also conclude that Boeing's conduct was "inherently
destructive of employee interests." 43 C o n d u c t i s " i n h e r e n t l y
41 See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5 th
Cir.
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
42 See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
43 See
NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.,

3 8 8 U . S . 2 6 , 3 3
NLRB-FOIA-00007327
Case 19-CA-32431
40
- 22 -
intent.
In International Paper Co., the Board set forth
rights. 45 F i r s t , t h e B o a r d l o o k s t o t h e s e v e r i t y o f t h e h a r m
the employees." 46 E v e n i f t h e e m p l o y e e ' s c o n d u c t i s
employee rights. 47
'
"
severe; employees got the distdnct message that if they engage
any futurP collective bargaining. Third,

Boeing's_conduct
demonstrated hostility to the very process of collective
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 -
(4 th
Cir. 2000).
45 See 319 LRB 1253, 1269 (1995), enf. denied 115 F.3d 1045
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
46 Id. at 1269-70 (citations omitted).
NLRB-FOIA-00007328
Case 19-CA-32431
410
- 23 -
Sound employees, the South Car'Olina employees, or Boeing
reason__that,it_ wanted to enhance_its_bargaining_position

49
_South_ Carolina employees did not. Accordingly, Boeing's
d e c i s i o n c o u p l e d w i t h i t s public pronouncements emphasizing
Section 8(a)(3).
III. T h e U n i o n W a i v e d i t s R i g h t t o Ba r g a i n
48 See 355 NLRB No. 199, slip op. at 3-4 (2010).
49 See id., slip op. at 3.
NLRB-FOIA-00007329
Case 19-CA-32431 4 0
- 24 -
A.
M a n d a t o r y S u b j e c t o f Ba r g a i n i n g
enterprise's scope and direction. 51 A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h e
the employer's decision. 52 A p p l y i n g t h e D u b u q u e t e s t , t h e
unit jobs. 54 F o r e x a m p l e , i n Q u i c k w a y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , I n c . ,
52Ibid.
employees").
NLRB-FOIA-00007330
Case 19-CA-32431
40
- 25 -
bargaining unit." 55 L i k e w i s e , i n S p u r l i n o M a t e r i a l s , L L C , t h e
an expanded unit. 56 A n d i n D o r s e y T r a i l e r s , I n c . , t h e B o a r d
jobs. 57
therefore poses a detriment to unit employees.

58 T h e w o r k
or direction; Boeing does not_intend. to_ change its_production.
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
58 See 321 NLRB at 617.
NLRB-FOIA-00007331
Case 19-CA-32431
40
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009. Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
B.
- 26 -
W a i v e r o f t h e R i g h t t o Ba r g a i n
decision that the employer has implemented unilaterally.

63
operations or phases thereof (subcontracting)[. ]64 T h i s
night was "vested exclusively_in_the_Employerf_and_was_not_.
60
See Provena St. Joseph Medical Center, 350 NLRB at 810-11.
61
See id. at 812, fn. 19.
waiver- of-right-to-bargain-about-drugla-Icohoilesting - -- -- - -
See, e.g., Ingham Regional Medical Center, 342 NLRB 1259,
63
64
See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00007332
Case 19-CA-32431
40
- 27 -
subject to arbitration. 65 A l t h o u g h a n o t h e r c o n t r a c t u a l
contract. 66
a g r e e m e n t . A s i n I n g h a m Re g i o n a l M e d i c a l C e n t e r , t h e o t h e r
8(a)(3) violation. 68
negotiations _for a new contract. However, during:those mid-__
65 Id. at 1260.
66 Id. at 1262.
67
See A l l i s o n C o r p . ,
3 3 0 N L RB a t 1 3 6 5 .
2002) (enforcing Board decision finding Section 8(a)(3)
88
NLRB-FOIA-00007333
- 28 -
South Carolina in mid 2011. 69 T h e U n i o n ' s e s t o p p e l a r g u m e n t

70 A b s e n t
modifications. 71 F o r t h i s r e a s o n , w e d o n o t r e a c h t h e
IV .
T h e A p p ro p ria te R em ed y
69 Thus; if there is a duty to bargain -over a relocation
December, even though -no- unit - work- would- be - reaocated - before ---
70

71
NLRB-FOIA-00007334
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
rights and gain assurance that Boeing will respectthose
rights. 72 T h e n o t i c e r e a d i n g i s p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e i f
Logistics--&-Operations, 340 NLRB-255,-258- (2003-)-,--affd.- 400
F . 3 d 9 2 0 ( D . C . C i r . 2 0 0 5 ) ( e m p l o y e e s w i l l p e r c e i v e that "the
the Act").
1093 (1996).
See also, e.g., Homer D. Bronson Co., 349 NLRB
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00007335
Case 19-CA-32431 4 0
- 30 -
B.
ROFs - 9
...,
At this time, we do not reach a decision on the Union's
r e q u e s t f o r p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f . T h e Re g i o n s h o u l d

74
NLRB-FOIA-00007336
7fr'
neSeattleM m es
T h u rsd ay, D ecem b er 9, 2010- P age u p d ated at 09 52 A M
Perm ission to reprint or copy this article or photo,other than personaluse,m ust be obtained from The S ea W e Tim es.C all
206-464-3113 or e-m ail resale@ seattletim es.com w ith your request.
S C lab or ch ief to figh t u n ion at B oein g's
N orth C h arleston p lan t, govern or-elect
sa y s
By JIM DAVENPORT
A ssociated Press
S outh C arolina G ov.-elect NikkiH aley says her new C abinet pick to run
the state's labor agency w illlead efforts to fight unions,particularly at
B oeing's new North C harleston plant.
N ikki H aley
AP /C harles D harapak
H aley said W ednesday the state D epartm ent of Labor,Licensing and R egulation w illplay a big role in keeping unions out of
the B oeing C o.plant that assem bles the com pany's new 787 D ream liner.H aley notes director nom inee C atherine Tem pleton,
a law yer w ho has specialized in union fights,has fought U nited A uto W orker organizing attem pts.
"S he is ready for the challenge.S he know s w hat it takes to take it on and she understands it's going to be a partnership level
that w e cannot lose," H aley said."W e're going to fight the unions and Ineeded a partner to help m e do it.S he's the right
person to help m e do
The InternationalA ssociation of M achinists says it hasn't given up on organizing the North C harleston plant.W orkers there
voted against union representation in S eptem ber 2009."Last Ichecked,the right to organize w as protected under federal
law ," said Frank Larkin,a spokesm an for the U pper M arlboro,M d.-based union.
S outh C arolina's anti-union reputation w as key to last year's decision by C hicago-based B oeing to expand its assem bly
operation here.In 2009,only tw o other states had sm aller share of unionized w orkers than S outh C arolina's 5.4 percent,
according to the B ureau of Labor S tatistics.
B efore B oeing's board decided to expand the North C harleston operation,it used the threat of the plant in bargaining w ith the
m achinists union.The union w aged an eight-w eek strike last year that shut dow n the com pany's P uget S ound assem bly line
in W ashington.
"In m y experience Ihave found there is not one com pany that operates m ore efficiently w hen you put another layer of
bureaucracy in," Tem pleton said."W e w illdo everything w e can to w ork w ith B oeing and m ake sure that their w ork force is
taken care of,that they run efficiently and that w e don't add anything unnecessarily."
H aley said Tem pleton w illalso lead stream lining efforts at the agency,including reducing the tim e it takes to get professional
and business-related licenses."W e've got slow ness.W e've got regulatory issues that are not w orking w elland so w e need
som eone that's going to go in there and clean this up," H aley said.
Tem pleton is the second C abinet nom inee that the state S enate w illconsider for confirm ation after it returns in January.O n
M onday,H aley said B M W executive and form er new spaper editor B obby H itt w as her choice for state com m erce secretary,
overseeing econom ic developm ent efforts at the C om m erce D epartm ent.
R epublican H aley takes office in January replacing outgoing G O P G ov.M ark S anford,w ho leaves office under the state's tw o
term lim it.
C o p yrig h t 0 T h e S eattle T im es C o m p an y
http://seattletim es.nw source.com /cgi...
Page 1 of 1
T hursday,D ecem ber 09,2010
NLRB-FOIA-00007337
A e ro s p a c e N e w s
1-
h ttp ://b lo g .se a ttle p i.co m /a e ro sp a ce /a rch iv
1 0 9 9 .asp
A P : N e w S .C . la b o r c h ie f w ill fig h t B o e in g u n io n e ffo rt
S ou th C arolin a G ov .-elect N ik k i H aley 's n om in ee to ru n th e state's lab or ag en cy w ill lead efforts to fig h t u n ion org an izin g ,
p articu larly at B oein g 's n ew N orth C h arleston p lan t, H aley told th e A ssociated P ress W ed n esd ay .
C ath erin e T em p leton , H aley 's n om in ee to h ead th e state D ep artm en t of L ab or, L icen sin g an d R eg u lation , is a law y er w h o h as
specialized in union fights.
"W e're g oin g to fig h t th e u n ion s an d I n eed ed a p artn er to h elp m e d o it," H aley told th e A P .
T h e In tern ation al A ssociation of M ach in ists said it h asn 't g iv en u p on org an izin g th e p lan t, w h ose w ork ers
ousted th e u n ion
last y ear. A fter th at v ote, an d failu re of d iscu ssion s w ith P u g et S ou n d u n ion s, B oein g
decided to p u t its secon d 787 D ream liner
assem bly line in N orth C harleston.
S ee m ore in th e story .
P osted by A u b re y C o h e n a t D e ce m b e r 8 , 2 0 1 0 4 :2 4 p .m .
R eturn to A P : N ew S .C . labor chief w ill fight B oeing union effort
http://blog.seattlepi.com /print.asp?en...
Page 1 of 1
T hursday,D ecem ber 09,2010
NLRB-FOIA-00007338
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Estep, Susan C.
Friday, May 14, 2010 3:05 PM
Kobe, James; Ahearn, Richard L.; Pomerantz, Anne; Eskenazi, Martin; Hayashi, Minoru N.;
Jablonski, Colleen G.; Rooker, Karen; Sweeney, Brian
Active 'C' Cases as of 5/14/10
active 'C' CASE REPORT2010.doc
See attached.
Susan C. Estep, Secretary to the Regional Director
NLRB, Region 19, Seattle
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00007339
Date:
May 14, 2010
ACTIVE C CASES
CATEGORY 3
FILED
ACTION
AGENT/SUPV
DECISION DATE / STATUS
DUE
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007340
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007341
non-responsive
CA-32431
Boeing Company
3/26/10
5/14/10
Todd
non-responsive
Page 3 of 31
NLRB-FOIA-00007342
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007343
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007344
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007345
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007346
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007347
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007348
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007349
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007350
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007351
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007352
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007353
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007354
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007355
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007356
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007357
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007358
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007359
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007360
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007361
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007362
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007363
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007364
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007365
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007366
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007367
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007368
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007369
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007370
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pomerantz, Anne
Friday, August 27, 2010 7:12 PM
Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Ahearn, Richard L.
memo in Boeing
Dianne/Colleen,
When you send me the Boeing memo to edit, please also send it to my home email, in case I have trouble accessing this
E.6 Privacy
remotely this weekend:

Thanks much.
Anne
Anne P. Pomerantz
Regional Attorney | National Labor Relations Board | Region 19
2948 Jackson Federal Building, 915 Second Ave., Seattle, WA 98174
anne.pomerantz@nlrb.gov | (206) 220-6311 | (206) 220-6305
Please consider the environment before printing this email
NLRB-FOIA-00007371
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Estep, Susan C.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:56 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Pomerantz, Anne; Kobe, James; Eskenazi, Martin; Jablonski, Colleen G.;
Rooker, Karen; Sweeney, Brian; Hayashi, Minoru N.
Finch, Peter G.
Active 'C' Case Report 2010.doc
See attached.
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00007372
Date:
September 14, 2010
ACTIVE C CASES
CATEGORY 3
FILED
ACTION
AGENT/SUPV
DUE
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007373
CA-32431
Boeing Company
3/26/10
5/14/10
Todd
8/31/10 Advice memo issd.
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-000073
NLRB-FOIA-00007374
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007375
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007376
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007377
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007378
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007379
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007380
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007381
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007382
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007383
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007384
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007385
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007386
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007387
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007388
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007389
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007390
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007391
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007392
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007393
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007394
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007395
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007396
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007397
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007398
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007399
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007400
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007401
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007402
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007403
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007404
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007405
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007406
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Monday, April 18, 2011 3:47 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
new draft release
Boeingrelease.doc
Hi Rich, Here is the latest draft. Please feel free to mark it up!
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007407
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007408
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 4:49 PM
Mattina, Celeste J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
fact sheet so far
Boeingfactsheet.doc; Boeingrelease.doc
Hi here is what I have so far for the fact sheet. I know there are a lot of gaps but I hope to get them all filled by the end
of the day.
Also attached is a copy of the latest version of the press release.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007409
NLRB-FOIA-00007410
NLRB-FOIA-00007411
NLRB-FOIA-00007412
NLRB-FOIA-00007413
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: one more addition to press release
Thanks - great additions.
________________________________________
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: FW: one more addition to press release
My suggestions in red.
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: one more addition to press release
On the train home I read over the statement and thought there was one missing piece,
Exemption 5 deliberative
Feel free to tweak the language
Here's the whole thing cut and pasted - what do you think?
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007414
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007415
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Ahearn, Richard L.
Re: one more addition to press release
Yes, absolutely!
--------------------------
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent: Tue Apr 19 19:14:15 2011
Subject: RE: one more addition to press release
Celeste, Are you in agreement with my suggestions?
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: Re: one more addition to press release
I think this looks good, thanks Nancy!
--------------------------
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Sent: Tue Apr 19 19:08:24 2011
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007416
NLRB-FOIA-00007417
Microsoft Outlook
Pye, Rosemary
Ahearn, Richard L.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Non-responsive
On Boeing, I spoke about it in RI, where they have 11% unemployment. They empathized with Charleston and were
amazed that Boeing couldnt come up with a better explanation. Is Airbus their only competitor? Is there another
domestic airplane manufacturer? Given all those strikes, they dont seem to have lost business as a result.
Rosemary
To: Pye, Rosemary
Subject:
Rosemary,
non-responsive
I thought as Chair of the RD committee you should be aware
non-responsive
Also, thanks for the kind words about Boeing; I am astonished at the level of rancor, politics it has generated.
Rich
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007418
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007419
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : NLRB response to Boeing letter?
We have this request now too.
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Mark Tapscott [mailto:mark.tapscott@gmail.com]
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: NLRB response to Boeing letter?
We are editorializing in tomorrow's print and online editions concerning the issues raised
by the Luttig letter and would like to include any responses that have been offered to it by
either the General Counsel or spokesmen for the board.
--
Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
The Washington Examiner
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20007
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
mark.tapscott@gmail.com
mtapscott@dcexaminer.com
http://www.dcexaminer.com/
Proprietor,
Tapscott's Copy Desk blog
http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/TapscottsCopyDesk/
"Tether the state in the morning and by noon it knows the full length of its tether." ---
John Cotton (Paraphrased, actually)
NLRB-FOIA-00007420
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: NLRB response to Boeing letter?
Thanks
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: RE: NLRB response to Boeing letter?
Exemption 5
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW: NLRB response to Boeing letter?
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007421
To: Cleeland, Nancy
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007422
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
Thanks
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007423
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007424
Microsoft Outlook
Kearney, Barry J.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 12:08 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Nancy
As to the AP and Examiner inquiry,it is not unusual for the GC to get letters from parties commenting on case handling
matters. There will be a response along the lines that
Exemption 5
Thanks
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007425
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007426
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Ahearn, Richard L.
What do you think of this?
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007427
Thanks
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
2
NLRB-FOIA-00007428
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007429
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thanks we were asked directly if we are going to respond to Boeing.

Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:08 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.
Nancy
Exemption 5
Thanks
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007430
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007431
Microsoft Outlook
Kearney, Barry J.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
R

Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Nancy
Exemption 5
Thanks
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007432
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
2
NLRB-FOIA-00007433
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007434
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Exemption 5
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Cc: Kearney, Barry J.
Exemption 5
Rich
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007435
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Rich
Thanks
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
2
NLRB-FOIA-00007436
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007437
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Cleeland, Nancy
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
R

Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Nancy
matters. There will be a response along the lines
Exemption 5
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007438
Thanks
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy

2
NLRB-FOIA-00007439
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007440
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Snook, Dennis
FW :
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007441
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007442
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007443
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007444
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007445
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007446
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007447
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Snook, Dennis
Ahearn, Richard L.
FW :
To: Snook, Dennis
Subject: FW:
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007448
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007449
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007450
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007451
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007452
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007453
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007454
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007455
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Pomerantz, Anne
Friday, May 13, 2011 3:21 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Boeing, 19-CA-32431; Letter to Kilberg re Settlement
LTR 19-CA-32431.Boeing.Kilberg Letter.5.13.11.doc; SET.19-CA-32431.Boeing SA and NTE
5-13.pdf
Importance:
High
Rich,
Here is the letter I have cleared with the accompanying pdf versions of the settlement agreement and notice to employees
that we understand Advice approved yesterday. We have committed to transmitting these to Boeings counsel today.
Please let me know if you have any changes to the letter youd like to make.
Thanks.
Anne
From: Anzalone, Mara-Louise
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 12:16 PM
To: Pomerantz, Anne
Cc: Finch, Peter G.
Subject: Boeing, 19-CA-32431; Letter to Kilberg re Settlement
Please see attached, which reflects your edits.
M-L.A.
NLRB-FOIA-00007456
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007457
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007458
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007459
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007460
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007461
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Monday, May 16, 2011 2:12 PM
Albertsen, Mary
FW :
Cc: Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE:
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: FW:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
Subject: FW:

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007462
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007463
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007464
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007465
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007466
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007467
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007468
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007469
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007470
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007471
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Albertsen, Mary
Monday, May 16, 2011 3:13 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE:
Mary Albertsen, AOM
Region 19 - Seattle, W A
(206) 220-6318
To: Albertsen, Mary
Subject: FW:
Cc: Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE:
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: FW:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Attached has Richs 2 cents and my response to question 2 with a
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007472
Subject: FW:
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007473
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007474
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007475
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007476
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007477
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007478
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007479
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007480
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007481
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Pomerantz, Anne
Ahearn, Richard L.
Edits to Ellen's version using track changes
Please see attached. I apologize if there are any typos.
Anne P. Pomerantz
NLRB-FOIA-00007482
NLRB-FOIA-00007483
NLRB-FOIA-00007484
NLRB-FOIA-00007485
NLRB-FOIA-00007486
NLRB-FOIA-00007487
NLRB-FOIA-00007488
NLRB-FOIA-00007489
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Monday, May 23, 2011 1:02 PM
FW : Issa response
Most recent draft.
To: Simms, Abby; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Ferguson, John H.; Ahearn, Richard
L.
My minor tinkering suggestions are tracked in the attached.
Eric
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00007490
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007491
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007492
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007493
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007494
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007495
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007496
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007497
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Pomerantz, Anne
FW : Issa response
Draft Issa Response (8) - jpg - 5-24-11.doc
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Ex 5
. Otherwise, I think
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
L.
Well that was easy.
Ex 5
L.
Ex 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007498
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00007499
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007500
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007501
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007502
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007503
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007504
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007505
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Issa response
Many thanks.
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
Exemption 5
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007506
Exemption 5
Otherwise, I think
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007507
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00007508
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Estep, Susan C.
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007509
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007510
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007511
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
For discussion at 11 am meeting tomorrow.
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9) Motion to Strike Hearsay 6-21-11;
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007512
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007513
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007514
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jose,
Ahearn, Richard L.
Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Tomorrow morning the region will supplement your list of documents below.
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007515
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007516
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Thx.
--------------------------
To: Garza, Jose
Sent: Tue Jun 28 07:22:15 2011

Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007517
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007518
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Fw: Draft Response to Continuing Doc Production request
--------------------------
To: Garza, Jose
Sent: Tue Jun 28 07:22:15 2011
team will attend. From a discussion with Rich, th

Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007519
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007520
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007521
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Anzalone, Mara-Louise
Friday, May 13, 2011 3:16 PM
Pomerantz, Anne
Finch, Peter G.
Boeing, 19-CA-32431; Letter to Kilberg re Settlement
5-13.pdf
M-L.A.
NLRB-FOIA-00007522
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007523
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007524
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007525
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007526
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007527
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Edits to Ellen's version using track changes
Take a look and stop by?
Thx.
From: Pomerantz, Anne
Subject: Edits to Ellen's version using track changes
Please see attached. I apologize if there are any typos.
Anne P. Pomerantz
NLRB-FOIA-00007528
NLRB-FOIA-00007529
NLRB-FOIA-00007530
NLRB-FOIA-00007531
NLRB-FOIA-00007532
NLRB-FOIA-00007533
NLRB-FOIA-00007534
NLRB-FOIA-00007535
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ok
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
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, but
Exemption 5
Thanks, Lafe
NLRB-FOIA-00007536
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
Farrell, Ellen
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thanks Ellen
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Cc: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
Attached are the memo, which issued yesterday, and the fact sheet.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 5
. Thanks, Lafe
NLRB-FOIA-00007537
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
Farrell, Ellen
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 5
Thanks, Lafe
NLRB-FOIA-00007538
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
Farrell, Ellen
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Fair enough.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: Boeing
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
NLRB-FOIA-00007539
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 5
Thanks, Lafe
NLRB-FOIA-00007540
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
W ednesday, April 13, 2011 1:57 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
RE: draft press release in Boeing
I have some strategic ideas that I hope to discuss at the 4 pm meeting.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:55 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.
Cc: Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW: draft press release in Boeing
Exemption 5
From: Sophir, Jayme
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: draft press release in Boeing
Heres something we could use as a response when the fireworks erupt.
Jayme Sophir
Assistant General Counsel
Chief, Regional Advice Branch
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00007541
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
W agner, Anthony R.
FW : draft press release in Boeing
Boeingpressrelease.jls.doc
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Looks good; my few suggestions are in italics.
Rich
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:55 AM
Exemption 5
From: Sophir, Jayme
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00007542
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007543
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007544
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007545
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007546
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thanks
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007547
To: Cleeland, Nancy
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007548
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Ahearn, Richard L.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007549
Thanks
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
2
NLRB-FOIA-00007550
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007551
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy

Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Nancy
Exemption 5
Thanks
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007552
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007553
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Cleeland, Nancy
Kearney, Barry J.
Exemption 5
Rich
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007554
Exemption 5
Thanks
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
2
NLRB-FOIA-00007555
To: Cleeland, Nancy
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007556
Microsoft Outlook
Ahearn, Richard L.
Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
R

Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Nancy
Exemption 5
Thanks
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007557
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
2
NLRB-FOIA-00007558
NLRB-FOIA-00007559
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: comment on boeing letter?
Shoot I did it again! Sorry, easy to change.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: comment on boeing letter?
Except that I am not the Acting Attorney General.
From: Garza, Jose
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
I think it strikes the right tone.
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
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007560
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
RE: npr Boeing NLRB
image001.gif
Sounds good, thanks
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose
Subject: RE: npr Boeing NLRB
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Hi I was about to send this and then thought we should probably discuss first.
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007561
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
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
When was the last time the Board brought a case like this
( and a case like this ag a high
profile employer)
Wendy Kaufman | Correspondent | wkaufman@npr.org | Seattle | 206 232 8318
From: Cleeland, Nancy [mailto:Nancy.Cleeland@nlrb.gov]
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
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007562
NLRB-FOIA-00007563
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
Garza, Jose; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE:
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I think that's a good idea - I have some thoughts on it but have not had time to write them
down and will be tied up until mid afternoon.
________________________________________
From: Garza, Jose
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Cleeland,
Nancy
Subject: RE:
Attached please find my suggested edits to the document Jennifer sent around after our
meeting yesterday.
It seems that we have three great drafts that each point in a slightly
different direction.
I wonder if it makes sense for us to convene briefly to decide on a
direction before we continue drafting.
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013
________________________________
Subject: FW:
________________________________
Subject:
Per our discussion.
NLRB-FOIA-00007564
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sophir, Jayme
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
draft press release in Boeing
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00007565
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007566
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007567
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Farrell, Ellen
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Looks good; my few suggestions are in italics.
Rich
Exemption 5
From: Sophir, Jayme
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00007568
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007569
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007570
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Sophir, Jayme; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
How do we
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Importance: High
Barry. Please see suggested revisions
Exemption 5
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00007571
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry
J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Solomon, Lafe E.
I can make it at 4.
How do we
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Importance: High
Exemption 5
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00007572
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Cleeland, Nancy; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen;
Sophir, Jayme; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
OK.
Rich
How do we
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Importance: High
Exemption 5
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00007573
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.;
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Solomon, Lafe E.
Me too.
From: Garza, Jose
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir,
Jayme; Solomon, Lafe E.
I can make it at 4.
How do we
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Importance: High
NLRB-FOIA-00007574
Exemption 5
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00007575
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.; Abruzzo, Jennifer;
I will have to leave at4:30
To: Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme;
Solomon, Lafe E.
Me too.
From: Garza, Jose
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir,
Jayme; Solomon, Lafe E.
I can make it at 4.
How do we
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007576
Importance: High
Exemption 5
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00007577
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kearney, Barry J.
Fw:
John Kline and Phil Roe Boeing.doc
--------------------------
From: Garza, Jose
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Schiff, Robert
Sent: Thu May 12 17:04:47 2011
Subject: RE:
With my section.
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007578
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007579
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007580
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007581
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007582
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007583
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007584
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007585
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kearney, Barry J.
Friday, May 13, 2011 6:31 AM
Fw:
--------------------------
Sent: Thu May 12 18:58:40 2011
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007586
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007587
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007588
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007589
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007590
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007591
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007592
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007593
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kearney, Barry J.
Friday, May 13, 2011 7:57 AM
FW :
Subject: FW:
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007594
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007595
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007596
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007597
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007598
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007599
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007600
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007601
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kearney, Barry J.
Friday, May 13, 2011 11:00 AM
FW :
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
Subject: FW:
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007602
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007603
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007604
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007605
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007606
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007607
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007608
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007609
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, May 13, 2011 3:53 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
FW : Boeing, 19-CA-32431; Letter to Kilberg re Settlement
5-13.pdf
Importance:
High
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
Subject: FW: Boeing, 19-CA-32431; Letter to Kilberg re Settlement
Importance: High
Rich,
Here is the letter I have cleared with the accompanying pdf versions of the settlement agreement and notice to employees
that we understand Advice approved yesterday. We have committed to transmitting these to Boeings counsel today.
Please let me know if you have any changes to the letter youd like to make.
Thanks.
Anne
From: Anzalone, Mara-Louise
To: Pomerantz, Anne
Cc: Finch, Peter G.
Subject: Boeing, 19-CA-32431; Letter to Kilberg re Settlement
M-L.A.
NLRB-FOIA-00007610
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007611
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007612
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007613
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007614
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007615
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Farrell, Ellen
Monday, May 16, 2011 12:45 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Sophir, Jayme
RE:
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: FW:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
Subject: FW:
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00007616
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007617
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007618
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007619
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007620
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007621
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007622
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007623
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007624
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007625
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Monday, May 16, 2011 4:27 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Sophir, Jayme
Re:
--------------------------
Cc: Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Mon May 16 12:44:59 2011
Subject: RE:
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: FW:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Attached has Richs 2 cents and my response to question 2 with a
Exemption 5
Subject: FW:
NLRB-FOIA-00007626
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007627
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007628
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007629
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Exemption 5
In number 1,
Best regards,
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00007630
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007631
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007632
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007633
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007634
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007635
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007636
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007637
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007638
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Farrell, Ellen
Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
FW :
This is my contribution to the work the Region did.
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Exemption 5
In number 1,
Best regards,
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00007639
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007640
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007641
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007642
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007643
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007644
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007645
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007646
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007647
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:05 PM
Farrell, Ellen
RE: Issa letter - Boeing portion
Thank you, Ellen. I will try to circulate a draft that incorporates your section Monday morning. Enjoy your weekend!
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:31 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: Issa letter - Boeing portion
Sorry heres the attachment
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: Issa letter - Boeing portion
Ive prepared the attached partial draft of a response re the Issa questions regarding Boeing.
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
NLRB Division of Advice
202-273-3810
NLRB-FOIA-00007648
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Monday, May 23, 2011 8:04 AM
Issa response
NLRB-FOIA-00007649
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007650
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007651
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007652
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007653
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007654
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007655
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007656
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Monday, May 23, 2011 12:10 PM
Simms, Abby; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Ferguson,
John H.; Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Issa response
Eric
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00007657
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007658
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007659
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007660
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007661
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007662
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007663
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007664
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
FW : Issa response
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00007665
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007666
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007667
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007668
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007669
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007670
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007671
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007672
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007673
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007674
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007675
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007676
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007677
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
FW : Issa response
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007678
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007679
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007680
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007681
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007682
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007683
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007684
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007685
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007686
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007687
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007688
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007689
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007690
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Sophir, Jayme;
Ferguson, John H.; Moskowitz, Eric G.
Pomerantz, Anne
RE: Issa response
A couple of other suggestions
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Garza, Jose
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
Exemption 5
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00007691
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
L.
Exemption 5
Well that was easy.
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007692
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00007693
Pag e 1 o f 1
F arrell, E llen
F ro m :
S olom on,Late E .
S en t:
Tuesd ay, June 07, 20111:05 PM
To:
Farrell,E llen; M attina,C eleste J.; A hearn,R ichard L.
S u b ject: FW : seattle/hearing,etc
F ro m : C leeland,N ancy
S en t: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 12:28 PM
T o : S olom on,Lafe E .
S u b ject: seattle/hearing,etc
H iLafe,
I'm getting a lot of calls from reporters planning to go to S eattle.There are tw o m ain issues:
TV reporters w ant to know if there w illbe anyone from the N LR B in S eattle that they can talk to,preferably on
cam era.They especially w ant som eone that first day w ho could do a 'stand up'interview outside the courthouse
to explain w hat's about to happen.

Exemption 5
M elanie Trottm an of the W S Journalis w riting a set-up piece that w illprobably run this w eekend.S he's asking a
lot of questions that Ican't answ er.

Exemption 5
dealing w ith reporters going forw ard.
t w ould help m e in
Thanks
N ancy C leeland
NLRB D irector of P ublic A ffairs
(202) 273-0222
n a n c v . c le e la n c l@ n irb . g o v
6/7/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00007694
U nited States G overnm ent
1099 14th ST R E E T N W
W A SH IN G T O N D C 20570
N 'U IO N I I % 1
0 1 :
w w w .nlrb.gov
K 1 1 1 1 1 0 \1 ii(M IZ I)
M ay 9 , 2 0 11
J. M ichael Luttig, E squire
E xecutive V ice P resident & G eneral C ounsel
100 N R iverside M C 5003-6027
C h ica g o , IL 6 0 6 0 6 -1 5 9 6
D ear M r. Luttig:
R e:
C ase 19-C A -32431
T his is in response to your M ay 3 letter to m e concerning the above
captioned case.
Y our letter m akes certain assertions and argum ents concerning
state m ents in the pre ss abou t this m atter. N eed less to sa y, I do n't a gree w ith
your contentions. T he re have been num erou s conversa tions b etw een m y office
and B oeing concerning the facts and the law surrounding the circum stances of
th is ca se so th at e ach p arty is aw are of the o the r's position . T he ap propria te
forum to test those positions and the relevance and probative value of your
assertions is through the developm ent of an evidentiary record on w hich an
adm inistrative law judge can m ake a decision w hich can be review ed by the
B oa rd and ultim ately the C ourts. F inally, w h ile our ea rlier efforts to resolve this
m atter w ere unsuccessful, I still rem ain open to a resolution betw een the parties.
S incelel
Lafe/E . S olom on
NLRB-FOIA-00007695
U n ited S tates G o vern m en t
N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd
O F F IC E O F T H E G E N E R A L C O U N S E L
A dvice M em orandum
S.A.M.
D A TE
Ap r i l 1 1 , 2 0 1 1
D a
R i c h a r d L . Ah e a r n , R e g i o n a l D i r e c t o r
Region 19
Hmx&
B a r r y J . K e a r n e y , As s o c i a t e G e n e r a l C o u n s e l
D i v i s i o n o f Ad v i c e
SU B JE C T :
The Boeing Company
C a s e 1 9 - C A- 3 2 4 3 1
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
elsewhere was based on the unit's strike history; , (2) the
NLRB-FOIA-00007696
Case 19-CA-32431
-2
FA C T S
commercial aircraft. Boeing has a long-established collective-
Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAN) and certain IAN
Company facility to another Company facility not covered by
decisions affecting less than
to subcontracting and of
work due to lack of capability or capacity, or to
of
prevent production schedule slippage[.]" Section 21.7
work, to make and
the right to subcontract and of
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00007697
Case 19-CA-32431
-3
Boeing Introduces the 787 "Dreamliner"
Company officials noted the need for a second assembly line
but did not discuss the matter further.
McNerney sent a long e

mail to Boeing employees about the
NLRB-FOIA-00007698
Case 19-CA-32431
-4
conference in Everett. In a S e a ttle T im e s article, he was
On February 9, the S e a ttle T im e s reported that Washington
looking to put the second 787 line elsewhere.
On April 16, Boeing and IAN officials held their annual
summit i n C h i c a g o . M a n a g e m e n t o f f i c i a l s a t t e n d i n g i n c l u d e d
C E O M c N e r n e y , B o e i n g C o m m e r c i a l Ai r p l a n e s C E O Carson,
Management & Operations Ray Conner. IAN representatives
In his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
1
in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),

-
Dates are in 2009 unless otherwise noted.
NLRB-FOIA-00007699
Case 19-CA-32431
As a follow-up to this summit, Wroblewski and IAN
the Vought plant in North Charleston, South Carolina. IAN
NLRB-FOIA-00007700
Case 19-CA-32431
-6
without intermediaries." 3 Boeing also issued a FAQ document
assembly line. For example, The Post and the Courier reported
advantage in the 787 chase[.]" An article in the Charleston
Boeing suggested a series of three-Year agreements with an
for some sort of neutrality agreement. At the end of the
Journal characterized this vote as "[a] wild card" in Boeing's
NLRB-FOIA-00007701
Case 19-CA-32431
- 7 -
do.

Term Agreement
for giving up the right to strike, the parties would need to
wanted, and that in effect it was negotiating against itself.
c o n t r o l . At o n e p o i n t , B o e i n g s t a t e d t h a t the general wage
NLRB-FOIA-00007702
Case 19-CA-32431
-8
Carolina.
towards the end of the contract, annual increases in pension
B o e i n g with a two-page document entitled "Rough Draft on
six-month advance notice and good-faith bargaining over any
get back to him.
NLRB-FOIA-00007703
Case 19-CA-32431
r e l a t i o n s h i p h a s s o m e b e n e f i t s . . . . An d s o s o m e o f t h e
today had we not had a strike last year. Our .customers
couple of weeks."
Two days later, IAN General Vice President Michalski
not respond. On October 24, Michalski called Senior Vice
Meanwhile, the governmental bodies in South Carolina were
NLRB-FOIA-00007704
Case 19-CA-32431
1 0 -
Boeing Announces its Decisions to Locate the Second Line in
final analysis, this came down to ensuring our long-term
contract separate suppliers for the South Carolina assembly
l i n e . As a r e s u l t , e m p l o y e e s i n t h e P u g e t S o u n d a n d P o r t l a n d
t o s u f f e r a l o s s o f w o r k . Ar t i c l e s t h a t a p p e a r e d i n t h e
customers."
NLRB-FOIA-00007705
Case 19-CA-32431
- 1 1 -
second 787 line in Charleston: In explaining Boeing's
history. For exorable, he stated:
h a u l . An d w e h a d s o m e v e r y p r o d u c t i v e d i s c u s s i o n s
w i t h t h e u n i o n . An d u n f o r t u n a t e l y , w e j u s t d i d n ' t
o f w a g e s . An d w e j u s t c o u l d n o t g e t t o a p l a c e
Charleston.
w e ' v e h a d a l a b o r n e g o t i a t i o n w i t h t h e I AN . . . . An d
our customers that .every three years they're not
a c t u a l l y d o d e l i v e r . An d w e h a v e l o s t - o u r
When asked whether going to Charleston, in light of the
s i t e , t h e r e ' s r i s k i n v o l v e d . At t h e s a m e t i m e , w i t h t h e
certainly is the right one for us to make. 4
Once again, a Boeing CEO grossly exaggerated the burden of
NLRB-FOIA-00007706
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -
An d i t w a s n o t t h e w a g e s w e ' r e p a y i n g t o d a y . I t w a s t h a t
ACTION
This case involves Boeing's transfer of work from an
employees, on its intranet site, in the media, and in talks
y e a r s . Al t h o u g h t h e U n i o n e n t e r e d n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h B o e i n g
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00007707
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
of a n y work in Washington was contingent on "the stability of
problems.
running, with the space, the necessary equipment, and a
and a violation of Section 8(a)(3) based upon Boeing's
NLRB-FOIA-00007708
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -
I. The Employer Violated Section 8(a)(1)
employment. 10 An d t h e e m p l o y e r c o n v e y e d t h e m e s s a g e t h a t t h e
planned to introduce)- 1 T h e B o a r d c o n c l u d e d t h a t a l t h o u g h t h e
activity.
The Board expressly distinguished an employer's
5 See NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969).
6 Ibid.
8 See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
9 See id. at 520.
10
See id. at 520-21.
11
See id. at 521.
12 See id.
at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00007709
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
date. "13

violates Section 8(a)(1). 15 S i m i l a r l y , i n K r o g e r C o . , t h e
unlawful threats. 17 R a t h e r , a n e m p l o y e r ' s p r e d i c t i o n s o f

18
13 See id. at 522, fn. 6.
1997).
15 Ae l c o C o r p . , 3 2 6 N L R B 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 5 ( 1 9 9 8 ) . S e e a l s o D o r s e y
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
16 3 1 1 N L R B a t 1 2 0 0 . S e e a l s o G e n e r a l E l e c t r i c C o . , 3 2 1 N L R B
unionization could'result in the withholding of further
unionized).
18 Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00007710
Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -
contingency plans in the event of a strike. 19 An e m p l o y e r m a y
also reference the p o s s i b i l i t y that unionization, including
b a s i s f o r a S e c t i o n 8 ( a ) ( 1 ) v i o l a t i o n . An d s t a t e m e n t s
South Carolina in order to reduce vulnerability to delivery'
19 See id. 339 NLRB at 1137.
20 E.g.,
Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc., 342 NLRB
consequences").
22 These same comments were quoted in the
Seattle Times.
23 See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00007711
Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -
that they would lose work if they struck again. 24
(3) In articles that appeared in the S e a ttle T im e s and
strikes. 25
activity. 26
11.
Employer acted in retaliation for the employees' Union
Sound employees with consequent a d v e r s e e f f e c t s . I n s t e a d o f
24 T h e R e g i o n
to employees.
should insure that this message was communicated
NLRB-FOIA-00007712
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -
aA well as unit employees waiting to transfer into the more
implemented.
Recently, in Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co., t h e

27 I n
employer may not, for unlawfully motivated reasons, divert
impact on unit employees. 29 I n Adair Standish Corp.,

t h e
new work from Standish" and therefore violated Section 8(a)(3)
employees. 30 S i m i l a r l y , i n Cold Heading Co.,

t h e e m p l o y e r
27
See 355 NLRB No. 197, slip op. at 5, fn. 8 (2010).
28 Ibid.
29 S e e Adair Standish Corp.,

290
NLRB 317, 318-19 (1988), enfd
30
See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00007713
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
31 S e e 3 3 2 N L R B 9 5 6 , f n . 5 , 9 7 5 - 7 6 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . S e e a l s o
(double-breasted employer unlawfully diverted work from its
33 See id. at 365-67 (employer violated Section 8(a)(3) by
NLRB-FOIA-00007714
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
activity. "36
strike. 38 S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e C o u r t f o u n d t h a t t h e u s e o f a
face of a whipsaw strike. 40
v i t i a t e t h e S e c t i o n 1 3 r i g h t t o s t r i k e . An d t h e B o a r d h a s
36 Ibid. (citation omitted).
37 380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38 See id. at 283-85.
39 See id. at 284.
40
See ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00007715
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
substantial. "42
Union's efforts to negotiate a long-term no strike agreement.
striking.
d e s t r u c t i v e o f e m p l o y e e i n t e r e s t s . " 43 C o n d u c t i s " i n h e r e n t l y
th
41 See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
Cir.
42 See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
43 S e e NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26, 33
NLRB-FOIA-00007716
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent. ,44 I n International Paper Co., the Board set forth
rights. 45 First, the Board looks to the severity of the harm
bargaining by "making it seem a futile exercise in the eyes Of
the employees." 46 Even if the employee's conduct is
employee rights. 47
Paper.
First, the harm to employees' Section 7 rights was
any future collective bargaining. Third, Boeing's conduct
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
(4 th
Cir. 2000).
44 Ibid.,
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
45
46
Id. at 1273 (finding no justification for employer's
bargaining unit work during a lawful lockout) ,. See also
Dorsey Trailers,
327 NLRB at 863-64 (employer's closing of

47
NLRB-FOIA-00007717
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -
from represented employees was that it , was in negotiations
reason -- that it wanted to enhance its bargaining position
increase because employees chose union representation. 49
S o u t h C a r o l i n a e m p l o y e e s d i d n o t . Ac c o r d i n g l y , B o e i n g ' s
Section 8(a)(3).
good faith over its decision as to where to locate the 'second
48
49
NLRB-FOIA-00007718
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
A . M a n d a t o r y S u b l e c t o f Ba r g a i n i n g
Under Dubugue Packing Co.,

a decision to relocate unit
enterprise's scope and direction. 51 Alternatively, the
the employer's decision. 52 Ap p l y i n g t h e Dubugue test, the
unit jobs. 54 F o r e x a m p l e , i n Ouickway Transportation, Inc.,
50 Provena St. Joseph Medical Center,
350 NLRB 808 (2007).
51 303 NLRB 386, 391 (1991), enfd. sub nom.

Food & Commercial
52 Ibid.
See, e.g., Titan Tire Corp.,

333 NLRB 1156, 1164-65 (2001)
53
See, e.g., Overnite Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 1275, 1276
employees").
54
NLRB-FOIA-00007719
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
bargaining unit." 55 L i k e w i s e , i n Spurlino Materials, LLC,

t h e
an expanded unit. 58 An d i n Dorsey Trailers, Inc.,

t h e B o a r d
jobs. 57
Trailers
the assignment of unit work to nonunit employees in
therefore poses a detriment to unit employees. 58 T h e w o r k
or direction; Boeing does not intend to change its production
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
1 3 4 F . 3 d 1 2 5 ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 8 ) . Ac c o r d Acme Die Casting,

3 1 5
NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
58 See 321 NLRB at 617.
59 S e e
Owens-Brockway Plastic Products,

311 NLRB at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00007720
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
decision; the Union was willing to make concessions on both
the strike and wage issues during negotiations in the fall of
2009. Accordingly, we conclude that Boeing's decision as to
where to locate the second 787 line was a mandatory subject of
bargaining.
B.
Waiver of the Right to Bargain
term of a collective-bargaining agreement." The Board will

63
operations or phases thereof (subcontracting)[.] 64 T h i s
right was "vested exclusively in the Employer" and was not
60
61
See id. at 812, fn. 19.
6 2 See Johnson-Bateman Co., 295 NLRB 180, 184-89 (1989) (no
waiver of right to bargain about drug/alcohol testing
63
64
See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00007721
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
s u b j e c t t o a r b i t r a t i o n . " Al t h o u g h a n o t h e r c o n t r a c t u a l
contract."
In this case, Section 21.7 of.the parties' agreement
agreement.
As in Ingham Regional Medical Center, the other
of
decision.
8(a)(3) violation."
negotiations for a new contract. However, during those mid-
65 Id. at 1260.
66 Id.
at 1262.
67 See Allison Corp., 330 NLRB at 1365.
68 See Reno Hilton, 326 NLRB 1421, 1430 (1998), enfd. 196 F.3d
(USA) Mineral Sands, Inc. v. NLRB, 281 F.3d 442, 450 (4 Cir.
2002) (pnforcing Board decision finding Section 8(a)(3)
NLRB-FOIA-00007722
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -
South Carolina in mid 2011. 69 The Union's estoppel argument

70 Ab s e n t
modifications. 71 For this reason, we do not reach the
IV. The Appropriate Remedy
69 Thus, if there is a duty to bargain over a relocation
December, even though no unit work would be relocated before
70
See Boeincr Co., 337 NLRB 758, 763 (2002) (employeL did not

71
NLRB-FOIA-00007723
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
rights. 72 The notice reading is particularly effective if
See, e.g., Homer D. Bronson Co.,

349 NLRB 512, 515 (2007),
Locristics & Operations, 340 NLRB 255, 258 (2003), affd. 400
F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (employees will perceive that "the
the Act").
72
312 NLRB 853, 853 (1993),
1093 (1996). See also, e.g., Homer D. Bronson Co., 349 NLRB
employees).
73 Three Sisters Sportswear Co.,
NLRB-FOIA-00007724
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.J.K.
ROFs - 9
H:ADV.19-CA-32431.Response2.Boeing.dlw
NLRB-FOIA-00007725
U N ITE D S TA TE S O F A M E R IC A
B E F O R E TH E N A TIO N A L LA B O R R E L A T IO N S B O A R D
R E G IO N 19
T H E B O E IN G C O M P A N Y '
and
C ase 19-C A -32431
IN TE R N A TIO N A L A S S O C IA TIO N O F
M A C H IN IS TS A N D A E R O S P A C E W O R K E R S
D IS TR IC T LO D G E 751, affiliated w ith
C O M P L A IN T A N D N O T IC E O F H E A R IN G
International A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers D istrict
Lodge N o. 751 ("Local 751" or the "Union"), affiliated w ith International A ssociation of
M ach in ists an d A ero sp ace W o rkers ("IA M "), h as ch arg ed in C ase 19-C A -32431 th at
The B oeing C om pany ("R espondent" or "B oeing"), has been engaging in unfair labor
practices as set forth in the N ational Labor R elations A ct (the "A ct"),29 U.S .C . 151 et
seq.
B ased th ereo n , th e A ctin g G en eral C o u n sel o f th e N atio n al L ab o r
R elations B oard (the "B oard"),by the undersigned,pursuant to 10(b) of the A ct and
102.15 of the B oard's R ules and R egulations, issues this C om plain t an d N otice of
H earing and alleges as follow s:
1.
The C harge w as filed by the Union on M arch 26, 2010, and w as served on
R espondent by regular m ailon or about M arch 29,2010.
NLRB-FOIA-00007726
2.
(a)
R espondent,a State of D elaw are corporation w ith its headquarters
in C hicago,Illinois,m anufactures and produces m ilitary and com m ercialaircraft at
various facilities throughout the United S tates,including in E verett,W ashington (the
"facility"),and others in the S eattle,W ashington,and P ortland,O regon,m etropolitan
areas.
(b )
R esp o n d en t, d u rin g th e p ast tw elve m o n th s, w h ich p erio d is
representative of allm aterialtim es,in conducting its business operations described
above in paragraph 2(a),derived gross revenues in excess of $500,000.
(c)
above in paragraph 2(a),both sold and shipped from ,and purchased and received at,
the facility goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly to and from points outside the
State of W ashington.
(d )
R espondent has been at allm aterialtim es an em ployer engaged in
com m erce w ith in th e m ean in g o f 2(2), (6) an d (7) o f th e A ct.
3.
The Union is, and has been at all m aterial tim es, a labor organization
w ithin the m eaning of 2(5) of the A ct.
4.
A t allm aterialtim es the follow ing individuals held the positions set forth
opposite their respective nam es and have been supervisors w ithin the m eaning of
-2 -
NLRB-FOIA-00007727
2(11) of the A ct,and/or agents w ithin the m eaning of 2(13) of the A ct,acting on
behalfofR espondent:
Jim Albaugh
Executive Vice President,B oeing;President
and C EO ofIntegrated D efense System s (until
late A ugust2009);C EO ,B oeing C om m ercial
A irplanes (as oflate A ugust2009)
ScottC arson
Executive Vice President,B oeing;C EO ,B oeing
C om m ercialA irplanes (untillate A ugust2009)
R ay C onner
Vice Presidentand G eneralM anager ofSupply
C hain M anagem entand O perations,B oeing
C om m ercialA irplanes
ScottFancher
Vice Presidentand G eneralM anager ofthe 787
Program
Fred K iga
Vice President,G overnm entand C om m unity
Relations
D oug K ight'
Vice President,H um an R esources,B oeing
Jim M cN em ey
President,C hairm an,and C EO
Jim Proulx
B oeing spokesm an
Pat Shanahan
Vice Presidentand G eneralM anager of
A irplane Program s
G en e W o lo sh yn
Vice President,Em ployee R elations
5.
(a)
Those em ployees of R espondent enum erated in S ection 1.1(a) of
the collective bargaining agreem ent described below in paragraph 5(c),including, inter
alia, allproduction and m aintenance em ployees in W ashington State,constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining w ithin the m eaning of 9(b) of the
A ct(the "PugetSound Unit").
(b )
Those em ployees of R espondent enum erated in S ection 1.1(c) of
-3 -
NLRB-FOIA-00007728
alia, allproduction and m aintenance em ployees in the Portland,O regon area,constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining w ithin the m eaning of 9(b)
ofthe A ct(the "Portland Unit").
(c)
.S ince at least 1975 and at allm aterialtim es,the IA M has been the
designated exclusive collective bargaining representative of the P uget S ound Unit and
the P ortland Unit (collectively,the "Unit") and recognized as such representative by
R espondent.This recognition has been em bodied in successive collective-bargaining
ag reem en ts, th e m o st recen t o f w h ich is effective fro m N o vem b er 2, 2008, to
S eptem ber 8,2012.
(d )
S ince 1975,during the course of the parties'collective-bargaining
relationship,the IA M engaged in strikes in 1977,1989,1995,2005,and 2008.
6.
O n or about the dates and by the m anner noted below ,R espondent m ade
coercive statem ents to its em ployees that it w ould rem ove or had rem oved w ork from
the U nit b ecause em ployees h ad struck and R espond ent threatened or im pliedly
threatened that the Unit w ould lose additional w ork in the event of future strikes:
(a ) O cto b er 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , by M cN erney in a quarterly earnings conference
callthat w as posted on B oeing's intranet w ebsite for allem ployees and reported in the
S eattle P ost Intelligencer A erospace N ew s and quoted in the S eattle Tim es,m ade an
extended statem ent regarding "diversifying [R espondent's] ,lab o r p o o l an d lab o r
relationship," and m oving the 787 D ream liner w ork to S outh C arolina due to 'strikes
h a p p e n in g e v e ry th re e to fo u r y e a rs in P u g e t S o u n d ." .
-4 -
NLRB-FOIA-00007729
(b)
O ctober 28,2009,based on its O ctober 28,2009,m em orandum
entitled "787 Second Line,Q uestions and A nsw ers for M anagers," inform ed em ployees,
am ong other things,that its decision to locate the second 787 D ream liner line in South
C arolina w as m ade in order to reduce R espondent's vulnerability to delivery disruptions
,,
caused by w ork stoppages.
D ecem ber 7,2009,by C onner and Proulx in an article appearing in
the S eattle Tim es,attributed R espondent's 787 D ream liner production decision to use a Ilf
. .
..
"dual-sourcing" system and to contract w ith separate suppliers for the South C arolina
(c)
line to pastUnitstrikes.
D ecem ber 8,2009,by C onner in an article appearing in the P uget

i
Sound B usiness Journal,attributed R espondent's 787 D ream liner production decision
(d )
x p ,
to use a "dual-sourcing" system and to contract w ith separate suppliers for the South
C arolina line to pastUnitstrikes.
(e)
M arch 2,2010,by A lbaugh in a video-taped interview w ith a Seattle
Tim es reporter,stated that R espondent decided to locate its 787 D ream liner second line
in S outh C arolina because of past Unit strikes,and threatened the loss of future Unit
w ork opportunities because ofsuch strikes.
7.
(a)
In or about O ctober 2009,on a date better know n to R espondent,
but no later than O ctober 28,2009,R espondent decided to transfer its second 787
D ream liner production line of 3 planes per m onth from the Unit to its non-union site in
N orth C harleston,South C arolina.
-5 -
NLRB-FOIA-00007730
(b )
R espondent engaged in the conduct described above in paragraph
7(a) because the Unit em ployees assisted and/or supported the Union by, inter alia,
engaging in the protected,concerted activity of law fulstrikes and to discourage these
an d/or o ther em ployees from eng aging in these or oth er union and/or p rotected,
concerted activities.
(c)
R esp o n d en t's co n d u ct d escrib ed ab o ve in p arag rap h 7(a),
co m b in ed w ith th e co n d u ct d escrib ed ab o ve in p arag rap h 6, is also in h eren tly
destructive of the rights guaranteed em ployees by 7 of the A ct.
8.
(a)
but no later than D ecem ber 3,2009,R espondent decided to transfer a sourcing supply
program for its 787 D ream liner production line from the Unit to its non-union facility in
N orth C harleston,South C arolina,or to subcontractors.
(b )
8(a) because the Unit em ployees assisted and/or supported the Union by, inter alia,
an d/or o ther em ployees from eng aging in these or oth er union and/or p rotected,
(c)
com bined w ith the conduct described above in paragraphs 6 and 7(a),is also inherently
-6 -
NLRB-FOIA-00007731
9.
B y the conduct described above in paragraph 6,R espondent has been
interfering w ith, restraining, and coercing em ployees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in 7 of the A ct in violation of 8(a)(1) of the A ct.
10.
B y the conduct described above in paragraphs 7 and 8,R espondent has
been discrim inating in regard to the hire or tenure or term s or conditions of em ploym ent
of its em ployees,thereby discouraging m em bership in a labor organization in violation
of 8(a)(3) and (1) of the A ct.
11.
B y the conduct described above in paragraphs 6 through 10,R espondent
has engaged in unfair labor practices affecting com m erce w ithin the m eaning of 2(6)
and (7) of the A ct.
12.
A s part of the rem edy for the unfair labor practices alleged herein,the
A cting G eneral C ounsel seeks an O rder requiring either that one of the high level
officials of R espondent alleged to have com m itted the violations enum erated above in
paragraph 6 read,or that a designated B oard agent read in the presence of a high level
B oeing official, any notice that issues in this m atter, and requiring R espondent to
broadcast such reading on R espondent's intranet to allem ployees.
13.
(a)
A s part of the rem edy for the unfair labor practices alleged above in
paragraphs 7 and 8,the A cting G eneralC ounselseeks an O rder requiring R espondent
-7 -
NLRB-FOIA-00007732
to have the Unit operate its second line of 787 D ream liner aircraft assem bly production
in the S tate of W ashington,utilizing supply lines m aintained by the Unit in the S eattle,
W ashington,and Portland,O regon,area facilities.
(b)
O th er th an as set fo rth in p arag rap h 13(a) ab o ve, th e relief
requested by the A cting G eneralC ounseldoes not seek to prohibit R espondent from
m aking non-discrim inatory decisions w ith respect to w here w ork w illbe perform ed,
including non-discrim inatory decisions w ith respect to w ork at its N orth C harleston,
South C arolina,facility.
A N SW E R R E Q U IR E M E N T
R espondent is notified that, pursuant to 102.20 and 102.21 of the
B oard's R ules and R egulations,it m ust file an answ er to this C om plaint.The answ er
m ust be received b y th is office on or b efore M ay 4. 2011. or P ostm ark ed on or
b efore M ay 1 2011. Unless filed electronically in a pdf form at,R espondent should file
an originaland four copies of the answ er w ith this office and serve a copy of the answ er
on each of the other parties.
A n answ er m ay also be filed electronically by using the E -F iling system on
th e A gen cy's w eb site. In ord er to file an an sw er electron ically, access th e A gen cy's
/-
w eb site at w w w .n irb .ao v, click o n F ile C ase D o cu m en ts, en ter th e N L R B C ase
N um ber,and follow the detailed instructions.The responsibility for the receipt and
usability of the answ er rests exclusively upon the sender.Unless notification on the
A g en cy's w eb site in fo rm s u sers th at th e A g en cy's E -F ilin g system is o fficially
determ ined to be in technicalfailure because it is unable to receive docum ents for a
continuous period of m ore than 2 hours after 12:00 noon (E astern Tim e) on the due
-8 -
NLRB-FOIA-00007733
date for filing,a failure to tim ely file the answ er w illnot be excused on the basis that the
transm ission could not be accom plished because the A gency's w ebsite w as off-line or
unavailable for som e other reason.The B oard's R ules and R egulations require that an
answ er be signed by counselor non-attorney representative for represented parties or
by the party if not represented.

S ee 102.21.If the answ er being filed electronically is
a pdf docum ent containing the required signature,no paper copies of the docum ent
need to be transm itted to the R egionalO ffice.H ow ever,if the electronic version of an
answ er to a com plaint is not a pdf file containing the required signature,then the E-filing
rules require that such answ er containing the required signature be subm itted to the
R egionalO ffice by traditionalm eans w ithin three (3) business days after the date of
electronic filing.
S ervice of the answ er on each of the other parties m ust be accom plished
in co n fo rm an ce w ith th e req u irem en ts o f 102.114 o f th e B o ard 's R u les an d
R egulations.The answ er m ay not be filed by facsim ile transm ission.If no answ er is
filed or if an answ er is filed untim ely,the B oard m ay find,pursuant to M otion for D efault
Judgm ent,that the allegations in this C om plaint are true.
N O T IC E O F H E A R IN G
P LE A S E TA K E N O T IC E TH A T on the 14 th d ay o f Ju n e, 2011, at 9:00
a.m ., in Jam es C . S an d H earin g R o o m , 2966 Jackso n F ed eral B u ild in g , 915
S eco n d A ven u e, S eattle, W ash in g to n , an d o n co n secu tive d ays th ereafter u n til
concluded,a hearing w illbe conducted before an A dm inistrative Law Judge of the
N ationalLabor R elations B oard.A t the hearing,R espondent and any other party to this
proceeding have the right to appear and present testim ony regarding the allegations in
-9 -
NLRB-FOIA-00007734
this com plaint. The procedures to be follow ed at the hearing are described in the
attached Form N LR B -4668.The procedure to request a postponem ent of the hearing is
described in the attached Form N LR B -4338.
D A T E D at Seattle,W ashington,this 20 th day of A pril,2011.
(k,...,--
R ichard L.A heam ,R egionalD irector
N ationalLabor R elations B oard,R egion 19
2948 Jackson FederalB uilding
915 S econd A venue
S eattle,W ashington 98174-1078
10-
NLRB-FOIA-00007735
U N IT E D ST A T E S O F A M E R IC A
B E FO R E T H E N A T IO N A L L A B O R R E L A T IO N S B O A R D
R E G IO N 19
T H E B O E IN G C O M PA N Y
and
C ase 19-C A -32431
IN T E R N A T IO N A L A SSO C IA T IO N O F
M A C H IN IST S A N D A E R O SPA C E
W O R K E R S D IST R IC T L O D G E 751,affiliated
w ith
W O R K E R S
A N SW E R
R espondent T he B oeing C om pany ("B oeing"),by their undersigned attorneys,for their
A nsw er to the C om plaint and N otice of H earing ("C om plaint") filed by the A cting G eneral
C ounselof the N ationalL abor R elations B oard ("N L R B "),states as follow s:
G E N E R A L D E N IA L
E xcept as otherw ise expressly stated herein,B oeing denies each and every allegation
contained in the C om plaint,including,w ithout lim itation,any allegations contained in the
pream ble,headings,or subheadings of the C om plaint,and B oeing specifically denies that it
violated the N ationalL abor R elations A ct ("N L R A ") in any of the m anners alleged in the
C om plaint or in any other m anner.Pursuant to Section 102.20 of the B oard's rules,averm ents in
the C om plaint to w hich no responsive pleading is required shallbe deem ed as denied.B oeing
expressly reserves the right to seek to am end and/or supplem ent its A nsw er as m ay be necessary.
NLRB-FOIA-00007736
D E FE N SE S
W ithout assum ing any burden of proof,persuasion or production nototherw ise legally
assigned to it as to any elem ent of the claim s alleged in the C om plaint,B oeing asserts the
follow ing defenses.
1.
T he C om plaintand each purported claim for reliefstated therein failto allege
facts sufficient to state a claim upon w hich relief m ay be granted.
2.
T he statem ents cited in Paragraphs 6(a)-6(e) of the C om plaint are protected '
statem ents under Section 8(c) of the N L R A and under the First A m endm ent to the United States
C onstitution and are not adm issible to show any violation of the N L R A .
3.
B oeing's decision to place the second 787 assem bly line in N orth C harleston w as
based upon a num ber of varied factors,incltiding a favorable business environm ent in South
C arolina for m anufacturing com panies like B oeing; significant financialincentives from the
State of South C arolina; achieving geographic diversity of its com m ercialairline operations; as
w ellas to protect the stability of the 787's globalproduction system .In any event,even
ascribing an intent to B oeing that it placed the second line in N orth C harleston so as to m itigate
the harm fuleconom ic effects of an anticipated future strike w ould not be evidence that the
decision to place the second assem bly line in N orth C harleston w as designed to retaliate against
the IA M for past strikes.N evertheless,B oeing w ould have m ade the sam e decisions w ith
respect to the placem ent of the second assem bly line in N orth C harleston even if it had not taken
into consideration the dam aging im pact of future strikes on the production of 787s.
4.
E ven if the actions described in the C om plaint had constituted m ovem ent or
transfer of w ork,w hich allegations B oeing expressly denies,the InternationalA ssociation of
M achinists and A erospace W orkers D istrictL odge 751,affiliated w ith InternationalA ssociation
NLRB-FOIA-00007737
'r
5.
B oeing has not violated Section 8(a)(3) of the N L R A as it has not discrim inated in
the hire,w ages,tenure,or term s or conditions of em ploym ent of any Unit m em ber.
6.
B oeing's alleged conduct w as not inherently destructive of em ployees'rights
under the N L R A because, inter alia,in its collective bargaining agreem ent w ith B oeing,the JA M
expressly agreed that B oeing has the right to place w ork in any location of its choice w ithout the
need to bargain w ith the JA M ,and because an intent to m itigate the adverse econom ic im pact of
an anticipated future strike is notinherently destructive ofprotected em ployee rights under the
N L R A .
7.
B oeing has not violated Section 8(a)(1) of the N L R A as it has not interfered w ith,
restrained,or coerced em ployees represented by the IA M in the exercise of their rights protected
by the N L R A .
8.
T he rem edy requested in the C om plaint is im perm issibly punitive and w ould
cause an undue hardship on B oeing,its em ployees,and the State of South C arolina.M oreover,
none of the com plained of actions caused any hardship on any B oeing em ployees or the State of
W ashington.
9.
T he rem edy requested in Paragraph 13(a) of the C om plaint is im perm issibly
retroactive because its legalbasis represents a radicaland notreasonably anticipated departure
from currentBoard and courtprecedent.
10.
T he rem edy requested in Paragraph 12 ofthe C om plaintis im proper because
B oeing has not violated Section 8(a)(1) of the N L R A .
NLRB-FOIA-00007738
I-
T he rem edy requested in Paragraph 13(a) of the C om plaint is im perm issible
because it does not seek a restoration of the status quo.
11.
12.
C ontrary to w hatthe C om plaintalleges in Paragraph 13(b),the rem edy soughtin
Paragraph 13(b) w ould effectively cause B oeing to close its assem bly facility in N orth
C harleston,South C arolina.
13.
Som e or allof the claim s asserted in the C om plaint are barred by the six m onth
statute of lim itations set forth in Section 10(b) of the N L R A .
14.
T he C om plaint is ultra vires because the A cting G eneralC ounselof the N L R B
did not law fully hold the office of A cting G eneralC ounselat the tim e he directed that the
C om plaint be filed.
R E SPO N SE T O SPE C IFIC A L L E G A T IO N S O F T H E C O M PL A IN T
A N D N O W ,incorporating the foregoing,B oeing states as follow s in response to the
specific allegations of the C om plaint:
Pream ble: B oeing denies the allegations contained in the pream ble,except to adm it that
D istrict L odge 751,affiliated w ith the InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and A erospace
W orkers ("IA M ") has charged in case 19-C A -32431 thatB oeing has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices prohibited by the N L R A ,and that the A cting G eneralC ounselof the N L R B has
issued this C om plaint and N otice of H earing based upon the IA M 's charge.
1.
B oeing lacks inform ation and know ledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
allegations of Paragraph 1,except to adm it that,on or around M arch 29,2010,it received by
regular m aila charge,designated as C ase N o.19-C A -32431.
2.
(a) B oeing adm its the allegations of Paragraph 2(a).
NLRB-FOIA-00007739
(b) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 2(b),except to adm it that in the
last tw elve m onths its business operations resulted in gross revenues in excess of $500,000
(c) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 2(c),except to adm it that during
the last tw elve m onths it received,shipped,sold and/orpurchase goods at its facilities in the
State of W ashington valued in excess of $50,000 from places outside of the State of W ashington
(d) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 2(d),except to adm it that it is and
has been an em ployerengaged in com m erce
B oeing adm its the allegations of Paragraph 3
T he first sentence of Paragraph 4 states legal conclusions forw hich no answ eris
required A s to the rem aining allegations in Paragraph 4,B oeing adm its that the
identified individuals are orw ere eitheragents orsupervisors,and thatthey held
the follow ing positions in O ctober2009
Jam es ("Jim ") F A lbaugh E xecutive V ice President,T he B oeing C om pany,
C hief E xecutive O fficer,B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes
Scott C arson E xecutive V ice President,T he B oeing C om pany,C hief
E xecutive O fficer,B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes (until A ugust 2009)
R aym ond L C onnerV ice President and G eneral M anagerof Supply C hain
M anagem entand O perations,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes
Scott FancherV ice President and G eneral M anager,B oeing 787 D ream liner
Program ,B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes
Fredenck C K iga V ice President,State and L ocal G overnm ent R elations and
G lobal C orporate C itizenship forthe N orthw est R egion,B oeing C om m ercial
A irplanes
NLRB-FOIA-00007740
D ouglas P K ight V ice President,H um an R esources,B oeing C om m ercial
A irplane
W Jam es ("Jim ") M cN erney,JrC hairm an of the B oard,President,and
C hief E xecutive O fficer,T he B oem g C om pany
Jam es Proulx M anager,B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes N ew s and M edia
Patnck ("Pat") Shanahan V ice President and G eneral M anager,A irplane 7
Program s,B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes
E ugene W oloshyn V ice President,L aborR elations,T he B oeing C om pany
(a) T he allegations contained in Paragraph 5(a) state legal conclusions forw hich
no response is required,but to the extent a response is required,B oeing adm its that the
production and m aintenance em ployees in W ashington State constituted a "U nit" forcollective
bargaining purposes
(b) T he allegations contained in Paragraph 5(b) state legal conclusions forw hich
no response is required,but to the extent a response is required,B oeing adm its that the
production and m aintenance em ployees in the Portland,O regon area constitute a "U nit" for
'
collective bargaining purposes

(c) B oeing adm its the allegations of Paragraph 5(c)
(d) B oeing adm its the allegations of Paragraph 5(d)
B oeing denies the-m troductory sentence to Paragraph 6,and specifically denies
that,it "rem oved" or"had rem oved w ork" from its facilities in E verett,W ashington orPortland,
O regon because U nit em ployees had struck B oeing,and also specifically denies that it threatened
orim pliedly threatened that those facilities w ould lose additional w ork in the event of future U nit
stnkes A s to the lettered subparagraphs
NLRB-FOIA-00007741
(a) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 6(a),except to adm it that its
President,C hairm an and C E O Jam es M cN erney,participated in an earnings conference callon
O ctober 21,2009; and B oeing specifically denies that M r.M cN erney m ade an "extended
statem ent" or any statem entaboutm oving 787 D ream liner w ork to South C arolina due to
"strikes happening every three or four years in PugetSound." B oeing adm its thatthe referenced
new spaper articles appeared in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and The Seattle Tim es.
(b) B oeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 6(b),and further states thatthe
referenced O ctober 28,2009 m em orandum speaks for itself.
(c) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 6(c),except to adm it that the
referenced new spaper article appeared in The Seattle Tim es on D ecem ber 7,2009.
(d) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 6(d),except to adm it that the
referenced new spaper article appeared in The PugetSound B usiness Journal on D ecem ber 8,
2009.
(e) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 6(e),except to adm it that a Seattle
T im es reporter conducted a video-taped interview ofM r.A lbaugh and thatthe tape speaks for
itself.
7.
(a) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 7(a),and specifically denies that it
transferred the "second 787 D ream liner" assem bly line from its facility in E verett,W ashington to
a facility to be constructed in N orth C harleston,South C arolina,and exceptto state thaton
O ctober 28,2009,B oeing announced that it w ould place a new second assem bly line for the 787
D ream liner in N orth C harleston,South C arolina.
(b) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 7(b).
(c) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 7(c).
NLRB-FOIA-00007742
e-
8.
transferred a sourcing supply program for the 787 D ream liner assem bly line from its facilities in
Portland,O regon to N orth C harleston,South C arolina.
9.
B oeing denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9.
10.
B oeing denies the allegations contained Paragraph 10.
11.
12.
Paragraph 12 does notallege facts for w hich an answ er is required,butrelates the
rem edy sought by the A cting G eneralC ounseland,accordingly,no response is required.
H ow ever,to the extent that a response m ay be deem ed to be necessary,B oeing denies that the
A cting G eneralC ounselis entitled to,or thatthe B oard can order the rem edy requested in
Paragraph 12.
13.
(a) Paragraph 13(a) does not allege facts for w hich an answ er is required,but
relates the rem edy sought by the A cting G eneralC ounseland,accordingly,no response is
required.H ow ever,to the extent that a response m ay be deem ed to be necessary,B oeing denies
thatthe A cting G eneralC ounselis entitled to the rem edy,or thatthe B oard can order the rem edy
requested in Paragraph 13(a).
(b) Paragraph 13(b) does not allege facts for w hich an answ er is required but
m erely describes w hat the A cting G eneralC ounselsays is not part of the rem edy he is seeking.
T o the extent that a response m ay be deem ed to be necessary,B oeing denies that the A cting
G eneralC ounselhas correctly stated thatthe rem edy soughtin Paragraph 13(a)w illnot
effectively cause B oeing's assem bly facility in N orth C harleston to shut dow n.
NLRB-FOIA-00007743
Boeing reserves the rightto raise any additionaldefenses notasserted herein ofw hich
they m ay becom e aw are through investigation,as m ay be appropriate ata later tim e.
R espectfully Subm itted,
D ated: M ay 4,2011
--Z .le
_a
C 2r a
W illiam J.
I4fiV erg P.C .
G IBSO N ,D UN N & C R UTC H ER LLP
1050 C onnecticutA venue N .W .
W ashington,D istrictofC olum bia 20036
T elephone:202.955.8500
Facsim ile: 202.467.0539 .
R ichard B.H ankins
M C K EN N A LO N G & A LD R ID G E
303 Peachtree Street,N .E.
A tlanta,G erorgia 30308
T elephone: 404.527-4000
Facsim ile: 404.527-4198
A ttorneys for The Boeing C om pany
NLRB-FOIA-00007744
UN ITED STA TES O F A M ER IC A
BEFO R E TH E N A TIO N A L LA BO R R ELA TIO N S BO A R D
R EG IO N 19
TH E BO EIN G C O M PA N Y
C ase 19-C A -32431
and
IN TER N A TIO N A L A SSO C IA TIO N O F
M A C H IN ISTS A N D A ER O SPA C E
W O R K ER S D ISTR IC T LO D G E 751,affiliated
w ith
W O R K ER S
C E R T IFIC A T E O F SE R V IC E
I certify thata copy ofR espondent's A nsw er w as electronically served on M ay 4,2011
and sentby overnightm ailto the follow ing parties:
R ichard L.A hearn
R egional D irector
N ationalLabor R elations Board,R egion 19
2948 Jackson FederalBuilding
915 Second A venue
Seattle,W ashington.98174-1078
R ichard.A hearn@ nlrb.gov
M ara-Louise A nzalone
C ounselfor the A cting G eneralC ounsel
N ationalLabor R elations Board
915 2nd A venue,Suite 2948
Seattle,W ashington 98174-1078
M ara-Louise.A nzalone@ nlrb.gov
10
NLRB-FOIA-00007745
D avid C am pbell
C arson G lickm an-Flora
SC H W ER IN C A M PBELL BA R N A R D IG LITZIN & LA V ITT LLP
18 W estM ercer Street,Suite 400
Seattle,W ashington 98119
C am pbell@ w orkerlaw .com
Flora@ w orkerlaw .com
C ounselfor IA M
D A T E D this 4thday ofM ay,2011
D avis
1050 C onnecticutA venue,N W
W ashington,D .C .20036-5303
D D avis@ G ibsondium .com
NLRB-FOIA-00007746
's.
R E G IO N 19
C ase 19-C A -32431
and
w ith
W O R K E R S
A N SW E R
NLRB-FOIA-00007747
0 .
te
D E FE N SE S
W ithout assum ing any burden of proof,persuasion or production nototherw ise legally
assigned to it as to any elem ent of the claim s alleged in the C om plaint,B oeing asserts the
1.
T he C om plaintand each purported claim for reliefstated therein failto allege
2.
T he statem ents cited in Paragraphs 6(a)-6(e)ofthe C om plaintare protected
statem ents under Section 8(c) of the N L R A and under the First A m endm ent to the United States
3.
based upon a num ber of varied factors,including a favorable business environm ent in South
C arolina for m anufacturing com panies like B oeing; significant financialincentives from the
State of South C arolina; achieving geographic diversity of its com m ercialairline operations; as
w ellas to protect the stability of the 787's globalproduction system .In any event,even
ascribing an intent to B oeing that it placed the second line in N orth C harleston so as to m itigate
the harm fuleconom ic effects of an anticipated future strike w ould not be evidence that the
4.
transfer of w ork,w hich allegations B oeing expressly denies,the InternationalA ssociation of
M achinists and A erospace W orkers D istrictL odge 751,affiliated w ith InternationalA ssociation
NLRB-FOIA-00007748
5.
B oeing has not violated Section 8(a)(3) of the N L R A as it has not discrim inated in
the hire,w ages,tenure,or term s or conditions of em ploym ent of any Unit m em ber.
6.
B oeing's alleged conduct w as not inherently destructive of em ployees'rights
under the N L R A because, inter alia,in its collective bargaining agreem ent w ith B oeing,the JA M
expressly agreed that B oeing has the right to place w ork in any location of its choice w ithout the
need to bargain w ith the IA M ,and because an intent to m itigate the adverse econom ic im pact of
N L R A .
7.
B oeing has not violated Section 8(a)(1) of the N L R A as it has not interfered w ith,
restrained,or coerced em ployees represented by the IA M in the exercise of their rights protected
by the N L R A .
8.
T he rem edy requested in the C om plaint is im perm issibly punitive and w ould
W ashington.
9.
T he rem edy requested in Paragraph 13(a) of the C om plaint is im perm issibly
from currentBoard and courtprecedent.
10.
T he rem edy requested in Paragraph 12 ofthe C om plaintis im proper because
NLRB-FOIA-00007749
11.
T he rem edy requested in Paragraph 13(a) of the C om plaint is im perm issible
because it does not seek a restoration of the status quo.
12.
13.
Som e or allof the claim s asserted in the C om plaint are barred by the six m onth
statute of lim itations set forth in Section 10(b) of the N L R A .
14.
T he C om plaint is ultra vires because the A cting G eneralC ounselof the N L R B
did not law fully hold the office of A cting G eneralC ounselat the tim e he directed that the
C om plaint be filed.
R E SPO N SE T O SPE C IFIC A L L E G A T IO N S O F T H E C O M P L A IN T
Pream ble: B oeing denies the allegations contained in the pream ble,except to adm it that
D istrict L odge 751,affiliated w ith the InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and A erospace
W orkers ("JA M ") has charged in case 19-C A -32431 that B oeing has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices prohibited by the N L R A ,and that the A cting G eneralC ounselof the N L R B has
issued this C om plaint and N otice of H earing based upon the IA M 's charge.
1.
B oeing lacks inform ation and know ledge sufficient to form a belief as to the
allegations of Paragraph 1,except to adm it that,on or around M arch 29,2010,it received by
2.
NLRB-FOIA-00007750
(b) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 2(b),except to adm it that in the
last tw elve m onths its business operations resulted in gross revenues in excess of $500,000.
(c) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 2(c),except to adm it that during
the last tw elve m onths it received,shipped,sold and/or purchase goods at its facilities in the
State of W ashington valued in excess of $50,000 from places outside of the State of W ashington.
(d) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 2(d),except to adm it that it is and
has been an em ployer engaged in com m erce.
3. '
B oeing adm its the allegations of Paragraph 3.
4.
T he first sentence of Paragraph 4 states legalconclusions for w hich no answ er is
required.A s to the rem aining allegations in Paragraph 4,B oeing adm its that the
identified individuals are or w ere either agents or supervisors,and thatthey held
the follow ing positions in O ctober 2009:
Jam es ("Jim ") F.A lbaugh: E xecutive V ice President,T he B oeing C om pany;
C hief E xecutive O fficer,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes
Scott C arson: E xecutive V ice President,T he B oeing C om pany; C hief
E xecutive O fficer,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes (untilA ugust 2009)
R aym ond L .C onner: V ice President and G eneralM anager of Supply C hain
M anagem ent and O perations,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes
Scott Fancher: V ice President and G eneralM anager,B oeing 787 D ream liner
Program ,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes
Frederick C .K iga:V ice President,State and L ocalG overnm entR elations and
G lobalC orporate C itizenship for the N orthw est R egion,B oeing C om m ercial
A irplanes
NLRB-FOIA-00007751
. D ouglas P.K ight: V ice President,H um an R esources,B oeing C om m ercial
A irplanes
W .Jam es ("Jim ")M cN erney,Jr.:C hairm an ofthe B oard,President,and
C hief E xecutive O fficer,T he B oeing C om pany
Jam es Proulx: M anager,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes N ew s and M edia
Patrick ("Pat")Shanahan:V ice Presidentand G eneralM anager,A irplane
Program s,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes
E ugene W oloshyn: V ice President,L abor R elations,T he B oeing C om pany
(a) T he allegations contained in Paragraph 5(a) state legalconclusions for w hich
no response is required,butto the extenta response is required,B oeing adm its thatthe
5.
production and m aintenance em ployees in W ashington State constituted a "Unit" for collective
bargaining purposes.
(b) T he allegations contained in Paragraph 5(b) state legalconclusions for w hich
no response is required,butto the extenta response is required,B oeing adm its thatthe
production and m aintenance em ployees in the Portland,O regon area constitute a "Unit" for
collective bargaining purposes.
(c) B oeing adm its the allegations of Paragraph 5(c).
(d) B oeing adm its the allegations of Paragraph 5(d).
6.
B oeing denies the introductory sentence to Paragraph 6,and specifically denies
that,it"rem oved" or "had rem oved w ork" from its facilities in Everett,W ashington or Portland,
O regon because Unit em ployees had struck B oeing,and also specifically denies that it threatened
or im pliedly threatened that those facilities w ould lose additionalw ork in the event of future Unit
strikes.A s to the lettered subparagraphs:
NLRB-FOIA-00007752
(a) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 6(a),except to adm it that its
President,C hairm an and C E O Jam es M cN erney,participated in an earnings conference callon
O ctober 21,2009; and B oeing specifically denies that M r.M cN erney m ade an "extended
"strikes happening every three or four years in PugetSound." B oeing adm its thatthe referenced
(b) B oeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 6(b),and further states thatthe
(c) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 6(c),except to adm it that the
(d) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 6(d),except to adm it that the
2009.
(e) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 6(e),except to adm it that a Seattle
T im es reporter conducted a video-taped interview ofM r.A lbaugh and thatthe tape speaks for
itself.
7.
transferred the "second 787 D ream liner" assem bly line from its facility in E verett,W ashington to
O ctober 28,2009,B oeing announced that it w ould place a new second assem bly line for the 787
NLRB-FOIA-00007753
8.
9.
10.
B oeing denies the allegations contained Paragraph 10.
11.
12.
rem edy sought by the A cting G eneralC ounseland,accordingly,no response is required.
H ow ever,to the extent that a response m ay be deem ed to be necessary,B oeing denies that the
A cting G eneralC ounselis entitled to,or thatthe B oard can order the rem edy requested in
Paragraph 12.
13.
(a) Paragraph 13(a) does not allege facts for w hich an answ er is required,but
relates the rem edy sought by the A cting G eneralC ounseland,accordingly,no response is
required.H ow ever,to the extent that a response m ay be deem ed to be necessary,B oeing denies
thatthe A cting G eneralC ounselis entitled to the rem edy,or thatthe B oard can order the rem edy
(b) Paragraph 13(b) does not allege facts for w hich an answ er is required but
m erely describes w hat the A cting G eneralC ounselsays is not part of the rem edy he is seeking.
T o the extent that a response m ay be deem ed to be necessary,B oeing denies that the A cting
NLRB-FOIA-00007754
D ated:M ay 4,2011
W illiam J.lifferg P.C .
T elephone:202.955.8500
Facsim ile:202.467.0539
R ichard B.H ankins
T elephone: 404.527-4000
Facsim ile: 404.527-4198
NLRB-FOIA-00007755
R EG IO N 19
C ase 19-C A -32431
and
IN T E R N A T IO N A L A SSO C IA T IO N O F .
w ith
W O R M S
R ichard L.A hearn
R egionalD irector
N ationalL abor R elations B oard,R egion 19
915 Second A venue
10
NLRB-FOIA-00007756
D avid C am pbell
C ounselfor IA M
D A TED this 4
thday ofM ay,2011
iniii7 D avis
D D avis@ G ibsondunn.com
NLRB-FOIA-00007757
IN T E R N A T IO N A L A SSO C IA T IO N of M A C H IN IST S
and A E R O SPA C E W O R K E R S
C H R IS T O P H E R T . C O R S O N
G en eral C o u n sel
L eg al. D ep artm en t
9000 M achinists P lace
U p p er M arlb o ro , M D 20772-2687
.4 5 0 .3
O ffice (301) 967-4510
F ax (301) 967-4594
C ell (202) 368-6484
em ailccorson@ lam aw .org
NLRB-FOIA-00007758
IN TER N A TIO N A L A SSO C IA TIO N ofM A C H IN ISTS
and A ER O SPA C E W O R K ER S
C H R IS T O P H E R
T.C O R S O N
G eneral Counsel
LegalD epartm ent
9000 M achinists Place
U pper M arlboro, M D 20772-2687

.4/1111.
O ffice (301) 967-4510
Fax (301) 967-4594
C ell (202) 368-6484
em ail ccorson@ iam aw org
NLRB-FOIA-00007759
. P
Exemption 5
_3
NLRB-FOIA-00007760
. . . .
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-0000
NLRB-FOIA-00007761
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007762
3/18/11
M ike L uttig,B oeing's G C ,called m e at 2 pm .H e told nip that he w as "m iffed" that
although he had done w hat I asked (gotten B oeing to agree that no unit ees w ould be laid
off betw een now and the end of the contract expiration in Sept,2012),I w as still
considering issuing com plaint.I told him that the M achinists had proposed that the
parties m eet for a 2-w eek period w ith a m ediator and that I thought that if B oeing
accepted that offer,the parties m ight w ellreach a settlem ent.H e told m e that rather than
accept that offer,he thought that he w ould go to the H illto prevent m e from litigating the
case.I told him that he w ould have to get such a rider through the Senate.I said that I had
the C E O on tape saying that the m ove to SC w as not because of econom ics but because
the M achinists strike.I said I had a triable case and that I w ould do w hatever I thought
w as right under the N L R A .B ut I reiterated that I thought the parties should m eet and try
to reach a settlem ent.
3/28/11
L uttig called and I asked B arry K earney to be on the callw ith m e.L uttig said that B oeing
w ould not agree to a conversation w ith the M achinists w ith a m ediator,but that he w as
w illing to talk to them .H e said he w ould callthem this w eek.
4/8/11
Senator G raham called m e at 11:15 am .I w as in the M useum of M odern A rt in N Y C and
talked to him on m y cellphone.H e told m e that the "retaliatory charge" of the M achinists
against B oeing w ould have huge econom ic and politicalconsequences.H e said that the
charge w ould scare B oeing's custom ers and C ould affect orders.H e said that the political
fallout w ould be huge and that he w as m ore reasonable than his Senate counterpart (Sen.
D e M int).
I explained to him that I had been trying to settle this case for the last 6 m onths,and I
asked for his help in getting B oeing to agree to the M achinists'request for a 2-w eek
m ediated conversation.I told him that this case had every potentialto settle as B oeing's
business w as boom ing and that the parties had both indicated to m e that their futures
w ere tied to a successfulrelationship in the future,but that I had been unsuccessfulin
getting the parties to talk to each other,rather than to m e.I also told him that I w ould not
be seeking the dism antling of the S.0 plant and that I had m ade it clear to the M achinists
that that plant w as here to stay.
H e said that he w as pessim istic that the M achinists and B oeing could w ork things out,but
that he never thought it w as a bad idea to talk.I thanked him for being w illing to help.
4/11/11
I left a m essage for D ebbie D urkin,the aide to Senator G raham w ho place the callon Fri.
I received a callback from W alt K uhn at noon.I told him that I w as follow ing up on m y
NLRB-FOIA-00007763
conversation w ith the Senator on Friand thatI w anted to know ifhe had been successful
in contacting Boeing.H e said thatthe Senator w ould callm e back later this w eek.I told
W altthatI w as ready to begin the com plaintprocess and thatI could nothold itup
indefinitely.I said thatI w anted to talk to the Senator today ifpossible,and he said that
he w ould see w hathe could do.
4/11/11
Senator G raham called m e at3 pm .H e said thathe had talked to Boeing,and they had no
interestin m ediating the com plaint,w hich w as totally w ithoutm erit.H e said thathe
agreed w ith Boeing and understood their position.H e said thatifa com plaintw as filed,it
w illbe "nasty," "very,very nasty." H e said thatthis w as a case ofhow notto grow the
econom y.H e said thatw e had to do w hatw e had to do,and he had to do w hathe had to
do.Itw as up to us.H e said thatifcom plaintissued,he w as going "fullguns a-blazing."
NLRB-FOIA-00007764
J. M ichael Luttig
Executive V ice P resident &
G eneralC ounsel
C hicago, IL 60606-1596
M ay 3,2011
L ate E .Solom on,E squire
A cting G eneralC ounsel
N ationalL abor R elations B oard
D ear M r.Solom on:
statem ents attributed to you in the N ew York Tim es

on A pril23 about B oeing's
decision to place its new 787 finalassem bly line in South C arolina.A num ber of
these statem ents,w hich are criticalto your case against B oeing,fundam entally
m iN uote or m ischaracterize statem ents by B oeing executives and actions taken by
the C om pany.Y ou have a responsibility to correct these m isquotations and
tnischaracterizations,for the public record and also for purposes of the com plaint you
have filed.T hrough these m isquotations and m ischaracterizations,you have done a
grave disservice to T he B oeing C om pany,its executives and shareholders,and to the
160,000 B oeing em ployees w orldw ide.A nd,of course,you have filed a com plaint
Your Statem entThatB oeing "Transferred" U nion W ork
A s an initialm atter,repeated statem ents in the com plaint allege that B oeing
"rem oved w ork" from PugetSound (116),"decided to transfer its second 787
D ream liner production line" to South C arolina (117(a)),and "decided to transfer a
sourcing supply program " to South C arolina (1[8(a)).Y our A pril20 press release
m akes the sam e assertion: "T he N L R B launched an investigation of the transfer of
second line w ork in response to charges filed by the M achinists union and found
A s you w ellknow ,no w ork----none at all w as "rem oved" or "transferred"
from Puget Sound.T he second line for the 787 is a new finalassem bly line.A s it
did not previously exist in Puget Sound or elsew here,the second assem bly line could
not have been "rem oved" from ,"transferred" or otherw ise "m oved" to South
C arolina.Sim ply put,the w ork that is and w illbe done at our C harleston,South
C arolina finalassem bly facility is new w ork,required and added in response to the
historic custom er dem and for the 787.N o m em ber of the InternationalA ssociation of
Tni
hIA
)on
in P uget Sound has lost his or her job,or otherw ise suffered
M achi
sts'Muti
NLRB-FOIA-00007765
any adverse em ploym entaction,as a resultofthe placem entofthis new w ork in the
State ofSouth C arolina.
Y our ow n R egionalD irector,w hose office you have tasked w ith prosecuting
differently than you.A s the Seattle Tim es reported lastyear,"R ichard A hearn,the
N LR B regionaldirector investigating the com plaint,said itw ould have been an easier
case for the union to argue ifBoeing had m oved existing w ork from Everett,rather
than placing new w ork in C harleston." D om inic G ates, M achinists F ile U nfair Labor
C harge A gainstH oeing over C harleston, Seattle Tim es,June 4,2010.
419:01671116g
Since no actualw ork w as "transferred," itnow appears thatN LR B officials
are already,via public statem ents,transform ing the theory ofthe com plaintto say
that.because Boeing com m itted to the State ofW ashington thatitw ould build allof
the C om pany's 787s in thatstate,the building ofairplanes in South C arolina
constitutes "transferred" w ork or w ork "rem oved." Thus,on A pril26,an N LR B
spokesw om an.N ancy C leeland,apparently told a new s organization that"the charge
thatBoeing is transferring w ork aw ay from union em ployees stem s from the
com pany's originalcom m itm ent'to the State ofW ashington thatitw ould build the
D ream liner airplanes in this state.'"
The prem ise underlying thatassertion thatBoeing com m itted to the State of
W ashington to build allof the C orn .an '787s in ftstin_ton ts false.B oeing did
notvim m ito the State ofW ashington thatitw ould build allofits 787s in thatstate.
Boeing honored and fully allofits contractualcom m itm ents to the State of
in South C arolina.The notion thatBoeing had som ehow com m itted to W ashington
State to build all787s in thatstate is neithdr m entioned nor even suggested either in
the IA M 's charge or in your recently filed com plaint,and you never asserted that
Boeing had m ade such contractualcom m itm ents to the State ofW ashington in the
severaldiscussions w e have had w ith you in the m onths preceding your filing ofthe
com plaint.H ad you done so,w e w ould have explained to you w hy such an
understanding w as plainly incorrect.I callupon you to quickly and fully correctthe
record on this point.In addition to being w holly uninform ed,itcreates the
im pression thatyou and your office are now in search ofa theory thatw illsupporta
predeterm ined outcom e,even a theory thathas nothing to do w ith the N ationalLabor
R elations A ct.
Your S tatem ent That B oeing S ought To "P unish" U nion E m ployees
M ischaracterizing w hatBoeing did by calling ita "transfer" ofw ork,or
suggesting thatBoeing broke com m itm ents to the State ofW ashington,is bad
enough.Far m ore egregious,how ever,are the statem ents thathave been m ade
concerning the m otives and intentofBoeing's leaders specifically,thatsenior
Boeing executives soughtto "punish" union em ployees and to "threaten" them for
NLRB-FOIA-00007766
their pastand possible future strikes,through the C om pany's statem ents and its
location ofthe second finalassem bly line in South C arolina.
Airt7AFAIIKG '
The N ew York Tim es quotes you as saying thatBoeing "had a consistent
m essage that[the C om pany and its Executives]w ere doing this to punish their
G reenhouse, Labor B oard C ase A gainstB oeing Points to F ights to C om e,

N ew Y ork
Tim es,A pril23,2010,em phasis added.)N either your com plaintnor the post-hoc
statem ents you and other officials ofthe N LR B have m ade since the filing ofthe
com plaint()tiers a single Boeing statem ent letalone a "consistentm essage" that
Boeing acted to "punish" its em ployees,and,needless to say,you offer no evidence
ofthis in your nationalm edia interview either.
The com plaintalleges thatBoeing C om m ercialA irplanes C EO Jim A lbaugh
stated thatBoeing "decided to locate its 787 D ream liner second line in South
C arolina because ofpastU nitstrikes,and threatened the loss offuture U nitw ork
opportunities because of such strikes." (C om plaint 6(e).) T he com plaint cites a .
M arch 2,2010 interview ofM r.A lbaugh by the Seattle Tim es,butdoes notpurportto
be quoting any particular statem ent.The N LR B's w ebsite,how ever,offers a "fact
sheet" thatquotes M r.A lbaugh as saying:"The overriding factor [in transferring the
line]w as notthe business clim ate.A nd itw as notthe w ages w e're paying today.It
w as thatw e cannotafford to have a w ork stoppage,you know ,every three years."
htto://nIrb.goY lnode/443
Itw ould,ofcourse,have been entirely perm issible under existing law for M r.
A lbaugh to have m ade a statem entthatthe C om pany considered the econom ic costs
offuture strikes in its business decision to locate w ork in South C arolina or even
thatitw as the sole reason for such decision.ButM r.A lbaugh did noteven say either
ofthese things.M r.A lbaugh's fullstatem entw as as follow s:
W ellI think you can probably say thataboutallthe states in the country right
now w ith the econom y being w hatitis.Butagain,the overriding factor w as
notthe business clim ate and itw as notthe w ages w e're paying people today.
Itw as that w e can't afford to have a w ork stoppage every three years. W e
can'tafford to continue the rate of escalation of w ages as w e have in the past.
You know ,those are the overriding factors.A nd Iny bias w as to stay here but
w e could notgetthose tw o issues done despite the bestefforts qf the U nion
and the bestefforts of the com pany..
The italicized sentences w hich w ere deliberately om itted from your office's
presentation ofthis quotation on its w ebsite m ake clear thatM r.A lbaugh w as
referencing tw o,rather than one,"overriding factors," only one ofw hich is the risk of
a future strike.These are criticalom issions thatdirectly contradictyour apparent
theory ofthis case.
NLRB-FOIA-00007767
M oreover,no reasonable reader ofM r.A lbaugh's interview w ould depictitas
partofa "consistentm essage" thatBoeing soughtto "punish" its union em ployees.
M r.A lbaugh expresses his "bias" in favor ofPugetSound and lauds the good-faith
efforts ofboth sides.H e explains thatthe com pany's preference w as to locate the
new production line in PugetSound and thatboth the com pany and the union m ade
good-faith efforts to accom plish thatshared objective.Thus,w hen notm isquoted,it
is noteven arguable thatM r.A lbaugh's statem entconstitutes a "m essage" of
"punishm ent!" to the union for its pastor future strike capability.
The com plaint's attem ptto depicta statem entby Jim M cN erney,Boeing's
C hairm an and C hiefExecutive O fficer,as a threatto punish union em ployees is but
another exam ple ofm ischaracterization.The com plaintalleges thatM r.M cN erney
"m ade an extended statem entregarding 'diversifying [Boeing's]labor pooland labor
happening every three to four years in PugetSound." (C om plaint55(a)(em phasis
added).)
H e did notsay thatatall.The allegation is a sleight-of-hand in tw o obvious
respects,accom plished by the selective m isquotation ofM r.M cN erney's actual
statem ents.First,M r.M cN erney w as notm aking an "extended statem ent" about why
Boeing selected C harleston.H e w as responding to a reporter's question aboutthe
costofpotentially locating a new assem bly line in C harleston.A nd in fact,the
decision to locate the new finalassem bly line in South C arolina had noteven been
m ade atthe tim e M r.M cN tirney's statem ents w ere m ade.Second,M r.M cN erney
answ ered only the question as to com parative costs thatw as asked.Thus,in the
passages you m isquote and m ischam cterize,he discussed the relative costs ofa new
facility in a location other than PugetSound,versus the potentialcosts associated
w ith "strikes happening every three to four years in PugetSound." H e did notsay,as
you allege through the com plaint's m isquotation,thatBoeing selected C harleston
"due to" strikes.
A nd M r.M cN erney did noteven rem otely suggestthatw hatw ould later turn
outto be the decision to open a new line in C harleston w as in retaliation for such
com plaint.H e did notsay,he did notsuggest,and he did notim ply in any respect
thatBoeing intended to punish union em ployees or thata decision to locate a new
facility other than in PugetSound w ould or m ightbe m ade to punish the union for
paststrikes or because oftheir pow er to strike in the future.N either did he say,
suggest,or im ply thatany existing union w ork w as being transferred to C harleston.
H is answ er cannotbe cited in supportofthe legaltheories in-the com plaint,m uch less
the sw eeping statem entyou m ade to the N ew York Tim es aboutBoeing's "consistent
m essage" thatBoeing and its executives soughtto "punish" the C om pany's union
em ployees.
Finally,M r.M cN em ey's answ er to a reporter's question was not "posted on
Boeing's intranetw ebsite for allem ployees," m uch less posted for the purpose of
NLRB-FOIA-00007768
sending an illegalm essage under the N LR A ,as the com plaintincorrectly and
N or do any ofthe other few statem ents you reference in your com plaint
w hich I attach to this letter rem otely suggestan intentto "punish" the C om pany's
unionized em ployees.Q uite the contrary:these statem ents show ,atm ost,thatthe
C om pany considered (am ong m ultiple other factors)the risk and potentialcosts of
future strikes in deciding w here to locate its new finalassem bly facility.Those have
been deem ed perm issible considerations by an unbroken line ofSuprem e C ourtand
N LR B precedentfor 45 years.N otonly that,but,as you know ,Boeing reached outto
the IA M in an effortto secure a long-term agreem entthatw ould have resulted in
placing the second line in PugetSound.A lthough those negotiations w ere not
successful,thateffortalone defeats your w holly unsupported claim thatBoeing
executives senta "consistentm essage" thatBoeing's decision w as intended to
"punish" the union for paststrikes.
W hatyou said to a nationalnew spaper,thatBoeing m ade a billion-dollar
provocative allegation againstBoeing's leaders.Those leaders are deeply
com m itted to allofthe m en and w om en w ho w ork for the C om pany,those
represented by unions and those w ho are not.Y our statem entim plies thatBoeing's
m ostsenior executives acted outofpersonalspite and retribution tow ard its labor
union,as opposed to acting in the interests ofthe C om pany,the C om pany's
em ployees,and the C om pany's shareholders.Y ou have no supportfor thatstatem ent
w hatsoever.
Your Statem entThatB oeing's Statem ents A nd A ctions W ere So D em onstrably
U nlaw fulThatYou W ere C om pelled To F ile The C om plaint
"consistentm essage" thatthe C om pany intended to "punish" the union for its prior
strikes and its pow er to strike in the future,you had no choice butto issue a
com plaint.(Specifically,you said:"I can'tnotissue a com plaintin the face ofsuch
evidence.")A m ong other reasons,thatstatem entis puzzling,to say the least,in light
ofthe course ofBoeing's discussions w ith you and your office concerning this m atter
over the pastsix m onths.In particular,itis hard to reconcile w ith w hathas been your
repeated statem entthatyou did notbelieve this w as a m atter in w hich the N LR B
should be involved and thatyou w ould take no action on the m atter ifBoeing agreed
thatitw ould notlay offany 787 em ployees in PugetSound during the duration ofits
collective bargaining agreem entw ith the IA M .
W e ofcourse understand thatyou reversed your position and abandoned the
agreem entthatyou yourselfsoughtfrom Boeing after your further discussions w ith
the com plainant.Butthe pointis this:Itis exceedingly difficultto understand how
you could have proposed and then agreed to such a resolution itas you now say,you
believed thatthe statem ents and actions by Boeing and its executives w ere so
NLRB-FOIA-00007769
egregious thatthe law literally com pelled a com plaintby the N LR B.O fcourse,the
Your S tatem ent That The C om plaint D oes N ot S eek To C lose C harleston
Finally,there is the issue ofyour articulation ofthe rem edy soughtin this
com plaint.The com plaintseeks an order directing Boeing to "have the [[A M ]
operate [Boeing's]second line of787 D ream liner aircraftassem bly production in the
State ofW ashington." N otw ithstanding thatyou are seeking this rem edy,your office
has been atpains since filing the com plaintto state publicly thatthis is notequivalent
to an order thatBoeing "close its operations in South C arolina."

Fact C heck,
available at w w w .nli.b.gov (postofA pril26,2011).W e and the public w ould be
Boeing's currentplan is to produce a m axim um often 787s per m onth:seven in
PugetSound,and three on the second line in C harleston.Ifthe N LR B w ere to order
Boeing to produce outofPugetSound the three 787s per m onth thatare planned to be
assem bled in C harleston,thatw ould ofcourse require the production ofallofthe
C om pany's planned 787 production capacity in PugetSound.Thatfactw as
explained repeatedly to you and your staffin our extended discussions before you
* * * * * * *
Boeing intends to putthis pattern ofm isquotations and m ischaracterizations
before the A dm inistrative Law Judge,and ultim ately,before the N ationalLabor
R elations Board itselfin upcom ing proceedings,M r.Solom on.To the extentthey
reflectm isunderstandings ofthe facts on your part,w e w ould expectyour prom pt
w ithdraw alofthis com plaint.
7.J%.44,
Sincerely yours,
M ichaelLuttig
Executive V ice President
& G eneralC ounsel
The Boeing C om pany
A ttachm ent
NLRB-FOIA-00007770
Statem ents R eferenced in the N LR B C om plaint
6(a)-Jam es M cN erney,2009 3rd Q uarter Earnings C all,O ctober 28,2009
...There w ould be execution challenges associated w ith thatchoice [ofC harleston].
Butkeep in m ind thatw e've gota pretty good-sized operation dow n in C harleston today.
The --there w ould be som e duplication.W e w ould obviously w ork to m inim ize that.
ButI think having said allofthat,diversifying our labor pooland labor relationship,has
som e benefits.I think the union IA M and the C om pany have had trouble figuring itout
A nd I've gotto figure outa w ay to reduce thatrisk to the C om pany.A nd so som e ofthe
m odestinefficiencies,for exam ple,associated w ith a m ove to C harleston,are certainly
m ore than overcom e by strikes happening every --every three or four years in Puget
Sound and the very negative financialim pactofthe C om pany,our balance sheetw ould
be a lotstronger today had w e nothad a strike lastyear.O ur custom ers w ould be a lot
happier today,had w e nothad a strike lastyear.A nd the 787 program w ould be in better
shape had w e not.A nd so I don'tblam e --I don'tblam e this totally on the union.W e
justhaven'tfigured outa w ay,the m ix doesn't--isn'tw orking w ell,yet.So w e've either
labor base.
6(b)- "787 Second L ine Q uestions and A nsw ers," 10/28/09
Q 3:W as one site a higher costthan the other?
A : A llthings taken into account,this decision w illprovide econom ic advantages by
hostoffactors,from naturaldisasters to hom eland security issues and w ork stoppages.
W e're electing notto getinto how individualsites fared in specific areas ofthe
evaluation.
* * * * * * * *
Q 8:W e understand you w ere pushing the union for a no-strike agreem entand cam e
close to getting a 10-year deal.O bviously you didn'treach an agreem ent.W as thatthe
A :Itw as an im portantpartofour discussion w ith the union,butitw asn'tthe only
factor in our decision.In the finalanalysis,this cam e dow n to ensuring our long-term
production disruptions thatcan occur for a variety ofreasons,from naturaldisasters,to
agreem ent,w e feltour discus.sions w ith the IA M w ere productive and focused on the
NLRB-FOIA-00007771
rightthings --globalcom petitiveness (including em erging com petitors),and w ays to
sustain a reliable,on-tim e flow ofdeliveries to our custom ers.W e look forw ard to
m oving forw ard w ith the LA M in a positive w ay to grow our business in an increasingly
* * * * * * * *
Q 26:Y ou say thathaving a second line in C harleston reduces risk,butifthe IA M goes
A : G eographically diversifying finalassem bly on the 787 w illprotect a portion of
Boeing spokesm an Jim Proulx cited strikes in the PugetSound region as a m ajor factor in
the decision.W ith a second supplier for every part,Boeing potentially could continue
producing D ream liners in South C arolina even ifthe M achinists w enton strike here.
.Proulx said."W e have to show our custom ers w e can be a reliable supplier to them ."
The second production line "has to be able to go on regardless ofw hat's happening over
here," he added.
* * * * * * * *
R ay C onner,vice presidentand generalm anager ofsupply-chain m anagem ent and
operations,senta m essage M onday inform ing allBoeing C om m ercialA irplanes
m anagers ofthe dual-sourcing decision.
up fully operationalcoproduction by 2012," C onner's m essage said.
Proulx said Boeing has notdeterm ined how m uch w ork w illbe replicated w ithin the
W hen Boeing broke ground on its C harleston assem bly line in N ovem ber,the com pany
rudder shop," w hich suggests the tailfin m ay be builtatBoeing C harleston.
ButProulx said,"It's too soon to say w hatw illgo w here."
NLRB-FOIA-00007772
H e said the replication ofparts sourcing also w ould "accom m odate the ram p-up" required
to shiftto a planned rolloutof10 planes a m onth by the end of2013.
* * * * * * * *
"W e inform ed the (LA M )ofour plans to begin dualsourcing during the com pany/union
* * * * * * * *
Boeing's Proulx said potentialexternalsuppliers are being assessed "based on
value."
"W e'llreview supplier expertise,and w e'llensure thatthe rightleveloftraining and
replacem ent,ofw ork done in this region.
"W e are notm oving any w ork thatBoeing em ployees are currently perform ing w e are
6(d) PugetSound B usiness Journal A rticle,D ecem ber 8,2009
"D ual-souiving and co-production w illallow us to m aintain production stability and be a
* * * * * * * *
Boeing spokesm an Jim Proulx said itw as "too early" to tellifthe new production w illbe
contracted outor done by Boeing itselfatthe new South C arolina site,or elsew here in the
country.
H e said this is notindicative ofa w holesale m ovem entofexisting production aw ay from
this region.
"There w illbe no jobs lostas partofthis m ove.There are no plans to take this w ork
aw ay," he said.
NLRB-FOIA-00007773
6(e)--Jim A lbaugh Interview w ith the Seattle Tim es, M arch 2,2010
the econom y being w hatitis.Butagain,the overriding factor w as notthe business
clim ate and itw as notthe w ages w e're paying people today.Itw as thatw e can'tafford
to have a w ork stoppage every three years.W e can'tafford to continue the rate of
escalation ofw ages as w e have in the past.Y ou know ,those are the overriding factors.
efforts ofthe U nion and the bestefforts ofthe com pany.
NLRB-FOIA-00007774
r...
A L A N W IL SO N
ATTO R N E Y G E N E R AL
A pril 28,2011
L afe E . Solom on, E squire
N ational L aborR elations B oard
1099 14
th
Street, N W , Suite 8600
W ashington, D C 20570
D earM r.Solom on:
A s A ttorneys G eneral of ourrespective states, w e call upon you, as A cting G eneral
C ounsel of the N ational L aborR elations B oard ("N L R B "), to w ithdraw im m ediately the
com plaint num bered 19-C A -32431 against B oeing. T his com plaint represents an assault upon the
constitutional right of free speech, and the ability of ourstates to create jobs and recruit industry.
Y our ill-conceived retaliatory action seeks to destroy our citizens'right to w ork. It is South
C arolina and B oeing today, but w ill be any of ourstates, w ith ourright to w ork guarantees,
tom orrow .
T he right to w ork, uninhibited by com pulsory unionism , is a precious right and is
constitutionally enforceable through our states'right to w ork law s. See R etail C lerks Int'l v.
Scherm erhom , 375 U .S. 96 (1963). Such law s are designed to elim inate union affiliation as a
criterion for em ploym ent. H ow ever, the N L R B , through this single proceeding, attem pts to
sound the death knell of the right to w ork. A dditionally, this tenuous com plaint w ill reverberate
throughout union and non-union states alike, as international com panies w ill question the
w isdom of locating in a country w here the federal governm ent interferes in industry w ithout
cause orjustification.
Furtherm ore, this com plaint disrupts, and m ay w ell elim inate, the production of B oeing
787 D ream liners in South C arolina. In fact,B oeing has expanded its operations to m eet product
dem and in South C arolina, w hile adding new jobs in W ashington State. T he com plaint charges
B oeing w ith the com m ission of an unfairlaborpractice, but appears to do so w ithout legal and
factual foundation. T his unparalleled and overreaching action seeks to drive a stake through the
heart of the free enterprise system . T he statem ents of B oeing officials cited in your com plaint are
the innocent exercise of the com pany's right of free speech. T he Suprem e C ourt long ago m ade
it clearthat the N L R A does not lim it, and the First A m endm ent protects, the em ployer's right to
express view s on laborpolicies orproblem s. N .L .R .B . v. V a.E lectric and Pow er, 314 U S 469,
NLRB-FOIA-00007775
H on.Lafe E.Solom on
A pril27,2011
Page 2
130S.
C t.876,899-90
477 (1941).A s the C ourtrecently reiterated in C itizens U nited v.FE C ,

(2010),a corporation is nota second class citizen in term s of FirstA m endm entprotection.
O urstates are struggling to em erge from one of the w orsteconom ic collapses since the
D epression.Y ourcom plaintfurtherim pairs an econom ic recovery.Intrusion by the federal
bureaucracy on behalf of unions w illnotcreate a single new job orputone unem ployed person
back to w ork.
The only justification forthe N LR B 's unprecedented retaliatory action is to aid union
survival.Y ouraction seriously underm ines ourcitizens'rightto w ork as w ellas theirability to
com pete globally.Therefore,as A ttorneys G eneral,w e w illprotectourcitizens from union
bullying and federalcoercion.W e thus callupon you to cease this attack on ourrightto w ork,
ourstates'econom ies,and ourjobs.
W e look forw ard to yourim m ediate response.
Sincerely,
16 4 0
L ev
A lan W ilson
A ttorney G eneral
[Signatures continue nextpage]
C c:R espective C ongressionalD elegations
NLRB-FOIA-00007776
April27,2011
Page 3
....
K en C uccinelli
Attorney G eneral
C om m onw ealth ofV irginia
Q S. Inaft.a..
Sam uelS.O lens
Attorney G eneral
State ofG eorgia
,c
i--2e/---
E.ScottPruitt
Attorney G eneral
State ofO klahom a
Jon C .Bruning
Attorney G eneral
State ofN ebraska
Pp,416ti,
Pam Bondi
Attorney G eneral
State ofFlorida
,i7 .a,
G reg Abbott
Attorney G eneral
State ofTexas
LA03114 f S k e o le L .
Luther Strange
Attorney G eneral
State ofAlabam a
,-----7-7
/ o--
Al-a s2 ___.
Tom H orne
Attorney G eneral
State ofArizona
NLRB-FOIA-00007777
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ferguson, John H.
Friday, May 20, 2011 9:04 PM
Moskowitz, Eric G.; Bandini, Laura E.
our portion of letter to Congress
11 draft reply I & G 5-20.doc
Attached is the shorter version which
. If it suits you,
Exemption 5
please send it on to Celeste, Jennifer, and Jose
Exemption 5
Thanks for pulling together all the building blocks.
NLRB-FOIA-00007778
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007779
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007780
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007781
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007782
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007783
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007784
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007785
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007786
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007787
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007788
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Finch, Peter G.
Ahearn, Richard L.
Fwd: demint FOIA
sendeminmw.doc; ATT00001..htm
Sent from my iPhone; please excuse any typographical errors.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Young, Jacqueline" <Jacqueline.Young@nlrb.gov>
Date: June 13, 2011 1:23:53 PM PDT
To: "Finch, Peter G." <Peter.Finch@nlrb.gov>
Subject: FW: demint FOIA
Peter, please see draft response to Senator DeMint. Note that this has not been sent out yet as the
Board and the GC are reviewing it. Jackie
NLRB-FOIA-00007789
Page 1 of 1
file://C:\IGCShared\in\23\1.htm
8/29/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00007790
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007791
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007792
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007793
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007794
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Flanagan, Kevin P.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010 5:15 PM
Simms, Abby
Case Assignment Sheet
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007795
Non-responsive
Boeing (Nancy) - Helped Region acquire newspaper video interviews for use in ULP case.
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007796
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry
J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Solomon, Lafe E.
I can make it at 4.
How do we
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Importance: High
Exemption 5
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00007797
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Garza, Jose
FW : one more addition to press release
fyi
________________________________________
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007798
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007799
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
That sounds great.
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy
Re: one more addition to press release
Thanks, Nancy.
----- Original Message -----
To: Garza, Jose
Sent: Tue Apr 19 18:54:55 2011
fyi
________________________________________
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007800
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007801
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Garza, Jose
FW : NLRB response to Boeing letter?
FYI,
AP is writing a piece this morning about the Boeing letter too. We have this, and bigger stories by the Financial Times and
CQ Weekly. Its turning out to be another very busy day with the press.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007802
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Garza, Jose
Yes but tied up in meetings much of the day. Im working with barry and rich ahearn
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: NLRB response to Boeing letter?
Thank you, Nancy. Do you know if Lafe is around today?
To: Garza, Jose
Sent: Wed May 04 11:32:36 2011
FYI,
AP is writing a piece this morning about the Boeing letter too. We have this, and bigger stories by the Financial Times and
CQ Weekly. Its turning out to be another very busy day with the press.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
--
Mark Tapscott
1015 15th Street NW
Suite 500
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007803
202-459-4968 (Newsroom)
301-275-6645 (Cell)
Proprietor,
NLRB-FOIA-00007804
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
comment on boeing letter?
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007805
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007806
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007807
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy
Re: comment on boeing letter?
You are now.
Sent: Wed May 04 13:55:46 2011
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007808
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
available.

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007809
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00007810
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Cleeland, Nancy
FW : Harkin Statement on Attacks on National Labor Relations Board
Fyi:
If you are having trouble viewing this message, you can view the message online.
May 11, 2011
Unsubscribe
Update My Profile
Contact: Justine Sessions / Kate Cyrul
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 11, 2011
(202) 224-3254
Harkin Statement on Attacks on National Labor Relations Board
WASHINGTONToday, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee, spoke on the Senate floor to address recent attacks on the National Labor Relations Board regarding its
handling of a complaint against Boeing.
Below are his full remarks as prepared for delivery:
"Mr. President, recently, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against the Boeing Company alleging that
the company violated the National Labor Relations Act. This routine administrative procedure set off a melodramatic
outcry from the business community. A headline on the Wall Street Journals editorial page called it The Death of Right
to Work. South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley declared that it was government-dictated economic larceny. The
senior Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, warned that foot soldiers of a vast and permanent bureaucracy were trying to
implement a leftist agenda. You would think that capitalism itself was threatened.
"So instead of talking about how we can get Americans working again and get the middle class back on its feet, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to spend their time on the Senate floor attacking the handling of a
routine unfair labor practice charge. While I dont necessarily think debating this issue is the best use of the Senates time,
I feel compelled to respond because of the disturbing misinformation that has distorted the public discussion of this case.
"They say that a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can put its boots on Id say in the Senate
misinformation travels even faster than that. So its time to set the record straight.
"Here are the facts in this case: Boeing recently decided to locate its production facility for new Dreamliner planes in
South Carolina. The NLRBs complaint alleges that this decision was unlawful retaliation against Boeing workers in
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007811
Washington State, who had previously gone on strike. According to the complaint, Boeing management repeatedly,
publicly stated that they were going to build their new planes in South Carolina rather than Washington because the
unionized workers in Washington went on strike too often. Arguably, this violates the National Labor Relations Act,
which prohibits retaliation against employees who stand up for their rights.
"I have no opinion about whether or not Boeing violated the NLRA. It is not my job to determine the merits of this case,
and, likewise, it is not the job of my colleagues in Congress. We do not know all the facts and have not studied all of the
cases interpreting the law. But I do believe that the case should be decided impartially and should not be derailed by
political interference or opportunism.
"Opponents of workers rights have said that this complaint was issued because President Obamas labor-friendly
appointees on the Board were doing political favors for their union friends. Nothing could be further from the truth.
"This case has been handled without favoritism or political interference. The facts in the case were investigated by
dedicated, strictly nonpartisan career employees of the National Labor Relations Board, and career attorneys reviewed the
legal precedent for the case. Because the case involved novel issues of law, the regional office consulted the Division of
Advice in Washington DC. These are attorneys who are scholars of the law and have studied the legislative intent and the
75 years of decisions by our courts interpreting the NLRA. They carefully reviewed the case and made their
recommendation that the General Counsel should issue a complaint.
"Prior to issuing the complaint, Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon a career employee who spent more than 30 years
working at the NLRB under both Republican and Democrat superiors made every effort to resolve the dispute. Solomon
and the NLRB spent months trying to encourage the two sides to settle the dispute. The parties were unable to come to an
agreement, so the General Counsel issued the complaint on April 20th. A hearing is scheduled for June 14th before an
Administrative Law Judge. Depending on the outcome, the case can be appealed to the National Labor Relations Board
and eventually the Federal courts. That is the process that has been laid out by our laws and, personally, I have faith in that
process. Our system is designed to ensure that the rule of law is applied impartially to all parties. This case has provoked
controversy, and powerful interests have a big stake in the outcome. This makes it all the more important that we protect
the integrity of the process from improper influence.
"The dramatic responses to the complaint have needlessly complicated the issue and the NLRBs process.
There have
been threats to the NLRB budget as well as attempts to link the fate of nominations pending before the Senate HELP
Committee to the outcome of the case. These actions threaten the integrity of our judicial and prosecutorial processes.
This case like any adjudication handled by an independent agency should be determined based on the facts and the law,
not politics.
"In addition to mischaracterizing the NLRBs handling of this case, opponents of workers rights have also
mischaracterized the fundamental issue at stake. Several public officials, including some of my Senate colleagues, have
suggested that this case represents an assault on right to work laws. Again, thats just factually incorrect. There is
absolutely no way that the outcome of this case could affect in any way the right to work laws of any state.
"This case is not about right to work laws its about workers rights. If, indeed, the NLRB General Counsel is able to
prove that Boeing retaliated against Washingtons workers because they stood up for themselves, thats a very serious
violation of the law, and it deserves a very serious sanction.
"This is about far more than just one group of workers in Washington State. Unions are one of the few voices left in our
society speaking up for the little guy, and the rights provided in the NLRA are one of the few tools that workers can use
stand up for fair treatment, including good American jobs that pay good American wages and benefits. If we let powerful
CEOs trample all over these rights without consequences, we might as well give up on having a middle class altogether.
"Thats what this all comes down to. What we are really witnessing here is another example of the Republican assault on
the middle class that has been echoing across the country for months now. Just as people are rising up in states across the
country to tell Governors and other elected leaders not to destroy their rights, we in this body also need to stand up and tell
powerful and politically connected corporate CEOs that they are not above our nations laws.
"Americans understand fairness, and they resent it when the wealthy and powerful manipulate the political system to reap
huge advantages at the expense of working people. Thats exactly whats happening in this case. Powerful corporate
interests are pressuring members of this body to interfere with an independent agency, rather than let justice run its course.
And we should not tolerate this interference.
"Instead, we should turn our attention back to the issues that really matter to American families how we can create jobs
2
NLRB-FOIA-00007812
in Washington, South Carolina, Iowa, and across the country . . . how we can rebuild the middle class . . . and how we can
ensure that working hard and playing by the rules will help you build a better life for your family and your children. I plan
to spend a lot of time in the HELP Committee this year exploring these issues, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle will join me in that effort."
###
HELP Committee Website | News | Hearings | About Chairman Harkin
Update My Profile - Unsubscribe - Privacy Policy
NLRB-FOIA-00007813
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo,
Jennifer; Schiff, Robert
RE:
With my section.
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007814
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007815
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007816
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007817
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007818
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007819
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007820
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007821
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Schiff, Robert
Re:
Thanks for putting it together for easier viewing.
A few observations/thoughts:
In the introduction,
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Thu May 12 16:58:50 2011
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007822
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007823
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007824
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Schiff, Robert
FW :
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007825
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007826
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007827
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007828
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007829
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007830
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007831
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007832
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Friday, May 13, 2011 10:59 AM
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE:
Exemption 5
Subject: FW:
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.
NLRB-FOIA-00007833
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007834
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007835
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007836
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007837
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007838
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007839
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007840
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Saturday, May 21, 2011 4:05 PM
Farrell, Ellen
RE: Issa letter - Boeing portion
Thank you, Ellen. I will try to circulate a draft that incorporates your section Monday morning. Enjoy your weekend!
Subject: RE: Issa letter - Boeing portion
Sorry heres the attachment
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: Issa letter - Boeing portion
Ive prepared the attached partial draft of a response re the Issa questions regarding Boeing.
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
NLRB-FOIA-00007841
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Garza, Jose
FW : Issa response
With my revision on that one point.
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
L.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007842
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00007843
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007844
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007845
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007846
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007847
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007848
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007849
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Garza, Jose
FW : Issa response
Exemption 5
G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
Exemption 5
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007850
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00007851
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Ahearn, Richard L.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme;
Pomerantz, Anne
RE: Issa response
G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
Exemption 5
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Exemption 5
Otherwise, I think
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007852
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00007853
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Garza, Jose
FW : Issa response
Many thanks.
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
Exemption 5
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007854
Richard L.
Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007855
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00007856
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Mattina, Celeste J.
Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE:
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Celeste,
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose
Subject:
Exemption 6
NLRB-FOIA-00007857
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Re:
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thank you. I will circulate shortly.
To: Garza, Jose; Mattina, Celeste J.
Sent: Wed May 25 09:41:03 2011
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Hi Celeste,
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose
Subject:
Exemption 6
NLRB-FOIA-00007858
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
latest attack
Tim Scott announcing hes introducing some bill to keep us from doing what were doing from Boeing.
http://timscott.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=242859
I got a call from a reporter with Law 360 who hasnt seen the bill but is planning to write off the release. I told him that
would be irresponsible. Apparently they have not produced the actual bill anywhere. Man
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007859
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy
Still around?
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Non-responsive
Sent: Wed May 25 13:59:06 2011
Subject: latest attack
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007860
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
Garza, Jose
Re: Still around?
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Non-responsive
From: Garza, Jose
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Wed May 25 16:47:47 2011
Subject: Still around?
Non-responsive
Sent: Wed May 25 13:59:06 2011
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007861
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy
Re: Still around?
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Non-responsive
To: Garza, Jose
Sent: Wed May 25 16:50:38 2011
Subject: Re: Still around?
Non-responsive
From: Garza, Jose
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Wed May 25 16:47:47 2011
Subject: Still around?
Non-responsive
Sent: Wed May 25 13:59:06 2011
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007862
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Mattina, Celeste J.
Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE:
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
non-responsive
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Hi Celeste,
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose
Subject:
Exemption 6
NLRB-FOIA-00007863
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Re:
Great, 3 works for me too. Yes, Eric emailed them to me.
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose
Sent: Thu May 26 06:25:31 2011
Subject: RE:
the four states?
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: Re:
--------------------------
From: Garza, Jose
Sent: Wed May 25 18:40:58 2011
Subject: RE:
non-responsive
To: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007864
Hi Celeste,
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose
Subject:
Exemption 6
NLRB-FOIA-00007865
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Boeing Issa Response
Draft Issa Response - jpg - 5-25-11.doc
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007866
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007867
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007868
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007869
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007870
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007871
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007872
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007873
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
RE: Boeing Issa Response
Great, Ill see you in a bit.
Subject: RE: Boeing Issa Response
Yes, we were planning on meeting you then.
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: Boeing Issa Response
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007874
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Meeting w/ Kline and Roe
Kline-Roe Talking points.doc
Lafe,
Please find attached a rough draft of talking points for our meeting tomorrow. I am available to meet at your convenience
to discuss the meeting in more detail.
Thank you,
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007875
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007876
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007877
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007878
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Cleeland, Nancy; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose
Re: with my edits
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Thu Jun 02 15:39:22 2011
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007879
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE: with my edits
Respnse to Issa Hearing Invitaion - nc edits(3).doc
Exemption 5
do you think theyre
necessary?
Thanks!
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007880
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007881
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007882
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.
FW : with my edits
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
do you think theyre
necessary?
Thanks!
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007883
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007884
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007885
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: with my edits
I think tomorrow afternoon is fine.
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
do you think theyre
necessary?
Thanks!
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00007886
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Re: with my edits
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 6
momentarily.
Sent: Fri Jun 03 09:35:56 2011
I like the letter.
Exemption 5
Thanks, Lafe
From: Garza, Jose

necessary?
Exemption 5
do you think theyre
Thanks!
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007887
NLRB-FOIA-00007888
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
NLRB-FOIA-00007889
NLRB-FOIA-00007890
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007891
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007892
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007893
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007894
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.
Re: new draft of June 10 letter
image001.jpg
I had not seen this draft. Thank you.
Exemption 5
I apologize that I am not currently able to devote more time to this.
Sent: Fri Jun 10 12:10:48 2011
NLRB-FOIA-00007895
NLRB-FOIA-00007896
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
openingIssa.doc
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007897
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007898
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007899
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007900
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007901
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
openingIssa (2).doc
Per our discussion.
NLRB-FOIA-00007902
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007903
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007904
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007905
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007906
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Cleeland, Nancy
RE:
openingIssa (2).doc
Attached please find my suggested edits to the document Jennifer sent around after our meeting yesterday. It seems that
we have three great drafts that each point in a slightly different direction. I wonder if it makes sense for us to convene
briefly to decide on a direction before we continue drafting.
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
Subject: FW:
Subject:
Per our discussion.
NLRB-FOIA-00007907
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007908
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007909
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007910
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007911
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Ferguson, John H.
openingIssa3.doc
Heres my stab at incorporating todays comments.
NLRB-FOIA-00007912
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007913
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007914
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007915
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007916
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007917
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007918
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
--------------------------
Sent: Wed Jun 15 18:31:28 2011
Jen,
Cc: Ricci, Jane
NLRB-FOIA-00007919
NLRB-FOIA-00007920
NLRB-FOIA-00007921
NLRB-FOIA-00007922
NLRB-FOIA-00007923
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
OpeningIssa617draft.doc; OpeningIssa617acceptchgs.doc; image004.gif; image005.gif;
image006.gif
Jen,
Cc: Ricci, Jane
NLRB-FOIA-00007924
NLRB-FOIA-00007925
NLRB-FOIA-00007926
NLRB-FOIA-00007927
NLRB-FOIA-00007928
Attorney Client Privilege and Ex. 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007929
NLRB-FOIA-00007930
NLRB-FOIA-00007931
NLRB-FOIA-00007932
NLRB-FOIA-00007933
NLRB-FOIA-00007934
NLRB-FOIA-00007935
NLRB-FOIA-00007936
NLRB-FOIA-00007937
NLRB-FOIA-00007938
NLRB-FOIA-00007939
NLRB-FOIA-00007940
NLRB-FOIA-00007941
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Solomon, Lafe E.
Cleeland, Nancy
I think it looks great!
Jen,
Cc: Ricci, Jane
NLRB-FOIA-00007942
NLRB-FOIA-00007943
NLRB-FOIA-00007944
NLRB-FOIA-00007945
NLRB-FOIA-00007946
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
Cleeland, Nancy
OpeningIssa617acceptchgs (2).doc; image001.gif; image002.gif; image003.gif
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Please find attached a version of the draft with a cover page.

Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013

Exemption 5
there.
Jen,
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007947
Cc: Ricci, Jane
NLRB-FOIA-00007948
NLRB-FOIA-00007949
NLRB-FOIA-00007950
NLRB-FOIA-00007951
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007952
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007953
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007954
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007955
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007956
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007957
Microsoft Outlook
Mattina, Celeste J.
Garza, Jose
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Lafe is reading it now. As soon as he is done with it, we will make the final changes
and forward everything to you for submission. Unless you want us to submit it from
here
From: Garza, Jose
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc: Cleeland, Nancy

Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013

Exemption 5
there.
NLRB-FOIA-00007958
Jen,
Cc: Ricci, Jane
NLRB-FOIA-00007959
NLRB-FOIA-00007960
NLRB-FOIA-00007961
NLRB-FOIA-00007962
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Mattina, Celeste J.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
I am happy to send it over. Thanks!
To: Garza, Jose
Lafe is reading it now. As soon as he is done with it, we will make the final changes
and forward everything to you for submission. Unless you want us to submit it from
here
From: Garza, Jose
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc: Cleeland, Nancy

Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013

Exemption 5
there.
NLRB-FOIA-00007963
Jen,
Cc: Ricci, Jane
NLRB-FOIA-00007964
NLRB-FOIA-00007965
NLRB-FOIA-00007966
NLRB-FOIA-00007967
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.
Draft Response to Continuing Doc Production request
Please find attached a rough draft of our response to the continuing draft production request. I am also working to pull
together all the docs for disclosure.
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007968
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007969
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00007970
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007971
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007972
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Thank you, Rich.
To: Garza, Jose; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Sent: Mon Jun 27 19:39:39 2011
Jose,
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
help.
Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00007973
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007974
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Exemption 5
Thank you for working on this.
To: Garza, Jose
What about this?
To: Garza, Jose
team will attend.

Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

1
NLRB-FOIA-00007975
6)
7)
8)
9)
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007976
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Solomon, Lafe E.
Garza, Jose
To: Garza, Jose
team will attend.

Exemption 5
Also, as a reminder, we should address t
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
1
NLRB-FOIA-00007977
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00007978
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007979
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Monday, July 11, 2011 9:05 AM
Abruzzo, Jennifer
FW :
Issa Letter Ross Question.doc; David Issa June 27, 2011 Letter.pdf; Letter to Darrell Issa
dated July 11, 2011.pdf
Ill take a look after you tweak it. Thank you.
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 10:14 AM
To: Garza, Jose
Subject:
Hi Jose,
I am sending you both the word and pdf versions of the July 11 response to David Issas June 27 letter. The pdf file has
the incoming letter from Issa behind the response the word version does not. I have the original and copy to be mailed to
Issa and Ross on Monday.
NLRB-FOIA-00007980
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007981
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007982
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007983
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007984
NLRB-FOIA-00007985
NLRB-FOIA-00007986
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007987
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007988
Microsoft Outlook
non-responsive
From: Estep, Susan C.
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Moskowitz, Eric G.
Cc: Baniszewski, Joseph; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: Boeing Company, Case 19-CA-32431
Per Regional Director Ahearns instructions, attached is a memo requesting guidance in the above case.
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00007989
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007990
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007991
non-responsive
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00007992
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007993
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00007994
Microsoft Outlook
non-responsive
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00007995
Microsoft Outlook
non-responsive
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00007996
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jablonski, Colleen G.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010 6:57 PM
Dunn, Sara C.; Snyder, Michael J.; Kim, Angelie C.; Todd, Dianne
Perkins, Victoria
case status
03AUG10 Case status.xls
NLRB-FOIA-00007997
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00007998
non-responsive
0 to
NLRB-FOIA-00007999
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008000
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008001
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008002
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008003
non-responsive
C CASE
CA-32431
Boeing Company
3/26/2010
4/30/2010
5/14/2010 Seattle
7/24/2010 Obtaining CP evidence - CP tardy
in producing. W orking with
Librarian Andrew Martin. Met with
R&A for preliminary take. D
presented facts and lines of 8-5
cases. Disc 8-1&3. Advice
appropriate. Er subpoena, 7/28/10
for brg notes, etc. Drafting FIR.
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008004
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008005
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008006
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kobe, James
Thursday, August 26, 2010 12:28 PM
Estep, Susan C.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Pomerantz, Anne; Eskenazi, Martin; Sweeney, Brian;
Hayashi, Minoru N.; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Rooker, Karen
Davidson, Linda L.; Albertsen, Mary; Snook, Dennis; W illmore, W innie
EOM Update
EOM as of AUG 26 2010.xls
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008007
TO BE DONE BY END OF August 2010 (as of Thurs, A.M., Aug 26)
READY FOR AGENDA:
non-responsive
19-CA-32431-001
Boeing Company
3
Todd
Exemption 5
non-responsive
PAGE 1 of 4
NLRB-FOIA-00008008
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008009
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008010
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008011
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Todd, Dianne
Pomerantz, Anne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Pomerantz's personal email

Ahearn, Richard L.;
RE: memo in Boeing
ADV.19-CA-32431.Boeing Memo to Advice and Special Lit re decision and 10j.doc
Colleen also brought up some concerns she had regarding the language of the proposed order that I
would like to discuss. Will there be time on Monday? Here is the draft proposed order language.
Anne, Ive also attached the memo.
Thanks,
Dianne
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00008012
Ex. 5 Deliberative
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 4:12 PM
To: Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Cc: Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: memo in Boeing
Dianne/Colleen,
E.6 Privacy
Thanks much.
Anne
Anne P. Pomerantz
NLRB-FOIA-00008013
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008014
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008015
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008016
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008017
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008018
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008019
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008020
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008021
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008022
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008023
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008024
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008025
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008026
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008027
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008028
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008029
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008030
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008031
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008032
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008033
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008034
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008035
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008036
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008037
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008038
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008039
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008040
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008041
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008042
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008043
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008044
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008045
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008046
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008047
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008048
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008049
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008050
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008051
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008052
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008053
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008054
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008055
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008056
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008057
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008058
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008059
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008060
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008061
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008062
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008063
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008064
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008065
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008066
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008067
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008068
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008069
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008070
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008071
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008072
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008073
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008074
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008075
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008076
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008077
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008078
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008079
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008080
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008081
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008082
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kobe, James
Tuesday, August 31, 2010 12:33 PM
Jablonski, Colleen G.; Little, Janet C; Schaff, David; Eskenazi, Martin; Sweeney, Brian;
Rooker, Karen
Ahearn, Richard L.; Pomerantz, Anne
UPDATED EOM "To Do"and status list
EOM as of AUG 31 2010.xls
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008083
TO BE DONE BY END OF August 2010 (as of Aug 31, a.m.)
NEED INDICATED ACTIONS:
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008084
non-responsive
19-CA-32431-001
Boeing Company
3
Todd
TO ADVICE: 8/31 ?????
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008085
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008086
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008087
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jablonski, Colleen G.
Friday, December 03, 2010 3:21 PM
Perkins, Victoria
CASE STATUS
18NOV10 Case status.xls
V, Please update, without taking anything off. Th, C
NLRB-FOIA-00008088
Nonresponsive
Case Status as of 2/1/2012
NLRB-FOIA-00008089
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008090
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008091
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008092
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008093
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008094
Nonresponsive
Case #
Case Name
Filed
Dec.Date
Disp Date
Location
120 days
Status
C CASE
CA-32431
Boeing Company
3/26/2010
4/30/2010
5/14/2010 Seattle
7/24/2010 Obtaining CP evidence - CP tardy
in producing. W orking with
Librarian Andrew Martin. Met with
R&A for preliminary take. D
presented facts and lines of 8-5
cases. Disc 8-1&3. Advice
appropriate. Er subpoena, 7/28/10
for brg notes, etc. Drafting FIR.
Advice submission, 8/30.
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008095
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008096
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008097
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008098
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Estep, Susan C.
W ednesday, December 08, 2010 2:00 PM
Kobe, James; Eskenazi, Martin; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Rooker, Karen; Sweeney, Brian;
Hayashi, Minoru N.
See attached. Please keep me informed regarding groupings and any decisions that are made ASAP. Thanks in advance.
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00008099
Date:
December 8, 2010
ACTIVE C CASES
CATEGORY 3
FILED
ACTION
AGENT/SUPV
DUE
Non-responsive
CA-32431)
Boeing Company
3/26/10
5/14/10
Todd
CA-32811)
Boeing Company
11/1/10
12/20/10
8/31/10 Advice memo issd. in 32431
Non-responsive
Related to 19-CA-32811 filed 11/1/10
(Cat 3) (yes-same sit.)
Non-responsive
Page 1 of 37
NLRB-FOIA-00008100
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008101
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008102
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008103
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008104
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008105
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008106
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008107
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008108
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008109
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008110
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008111
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008112
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008113
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008114
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008115
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008116
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008117
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008118
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008119
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008120
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008121
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008122
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008123
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008124
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008125
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008126
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008127
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008128
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008129
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008130
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008131
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008132
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008133
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008134
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008135
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008136
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Estep, Susan C.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011 2:11 PM
Kobe, James; Eskenazi, Martin; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Rooker, Karen; Sweeney, Brian;
Hayashi, Minoru N.
See attached. If you get a chance, please take a look at any cases pending deferral in your group and let me know if there
are any changes in status that I dont know about. There are several that have been lingering around with no updates for
months, even years!
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00008137
Date:
January 11, 2011
ACTIVE C CASES
CATEGORY 3
FILED
ACTION
AGENT/SUPV
DUE
Non-responsive
CA-32431)
Boeing Company
3/26/10
5/14/10
Todd
CA-32811)
Boeing Company
11/1/10
12/20/10
8/31/10 Advice memo issd. in 32431
Exemption 5
Related to 19-CA-32811 filed 11/1/10
(Cat 3) (yes-same sit.)
Non-responsive
Page 1 of 38
NLRB-FOIA-00008138
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008139
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008140
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008141
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008142
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008143
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008144
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008145
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008146
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008147
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008148
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008149
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008150
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008151
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008152
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008153
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008154
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008155
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008156
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008157
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008158
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008159
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008160
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008161
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008162
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008163
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008164
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008165
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008166
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008167
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008168
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008169
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008170
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008171
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008172
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008173
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008174
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008175
K atz, Ju d y
From :
S ent:
To:
S u bject:
W illen , D eb ra L
M o n d ay, O cto b er 18, 2010 1:36 P M
K atz, Judy; S ophir, Jaym e
R E : seattletim es.com : B oeing 787s stack up at P aine Field aw aiting FA A
approval
N o -- the regular line.
I just sent an article that states at the end that the surge line is not yet functioning. The article
is d ated S ept. 7 2010.
O riginal M essage
From : K atz,Judy
S en t: M o n d ay, O cto b er 18, 2010 1:33 P M
To: W illen, D ebra L ; S ophir, Jaym e
S ubject: FW : seattletim es.com : B oein g 787s stack u p at P ain e Field aw aiting FA A approval
FY I. T h is article says th at B o ein g h as alread y co m p leted o r n ear co m p leted 14 787's. A re
these off of the surge line?
O riginal M essage
From : A hearn, R ichard L.
S en t: M o n d ay, O cto b er 18, 2010 12:46 P M
To : O m berg , B ob ; M attina, C eleste; K earn ey, B arry J.; S olom on , Lafe E .; K atz, Ju dy; Farrell,
E llen
S ubject: FW : seattletim es.com : B oein g 787s stack u p at P ain e Field aw aiting FA A approval
R ecent B oeing article.
R ich
B oeing 787s stack U p at P aine Field aw aiting FA A approval
The edges of E verett's P aine Field airport are turning into an overflow airplane parking lot as
B oeing builds 787 D ream liners that can't be delivered yet.
http://seattletim es.nw source.com /htm l/businesstechnology/2013154266_boeing14.htm l
T O S U B S C R IB E T O T H E S E A T T L E T IM E S P R IN T E D IT IO N
C all (206) 464-2121 or 1-800L542-0820, o r go to http://seattletim es.co m /subscribe
H O W T O A D V E R T IS E W IT H T H E S E A T T L E T IM E S C O M P A N Y O N L IN E Fo r in fo rm atio n o n
advertising in this e-m ail new sletter, or other online m arketing platform s w ith The S eattle Tim es
C o m p an y, call (206) 464-3237 o r e-m ail w eb sales@ seattletim es.co m
T O A D V E R T IS E IN T H E S E A T T L E T IM E S P R IN T E D IT IO N P lease g o to
http://w w w .seattletim escom pany.com /advertise
for inform ation.
NLRB-FOIA-00008176
C opyright (c) 2009 The S eattle Tim es C om pany
w w w .seattletim es.corn
NLRB-FOIA-00008177
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00008178
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.
Lets talk later on today. What is on the CD we are giving to them?
To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00008179
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00008180
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jose,
Ahearn, Richard L.
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad

1
NLRB-FOIA-00008181
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00008182
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.

Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
help.
Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00008183
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00008184
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008185
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.
Heres the revised letter.
Cc: Garza, Jose
To: Garza, Jose

Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

1
NLRB-FOIA-00008186
7)
8)
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00008187
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008188
C H A P T E R 5 . P R E T R IA L D IS C O V E R Y A N D D E P O S IT IO N S
5 -1 0 0 P re tria l D is c o v e ry
596-5250
P retrial discovery does not apply in B oard proceedings.
E
m
h
a
rt
In
d
u
s
trie
s
v . N L R B ,
907 F .2d 372, 378 (2n d C ir. 1990) an d

D a v id R . W e b b C o .,
311 N L R B 1135, 1135-1136
(1993) (and cited cases). N eith er the A ct, the U .S . C onstitution , no r th e A dm inistrative
P rocedure A ct confers the right to discovery in Federal adm inistrative proceedings.
N L R B v.
W a s h in g to n H e ig h ts ,
897 F .2d 1238, 1242 (2n d C ir. 1990) an d
K e n ric h P e tro c h e m ic a ls , In c .
V . N L R B ,
893 F .2d 1468, 1483 (3rd C ir. 1990), cert. d en ied 498 U .S . 981 (1990).
5 -2 0 0 D e p o s itio n s
5 9 6 -5 6 5 0 -3 3 0 0
A lim ited "good cause" exception exists to perm it the taking of a deposition to preserve
the testim ony of one's ow n w itness at the discretion of the R egional D irector or the judge.
B oard's R ule, S ection 102.30.

K e n ric h P e tro c h e m ic a ls ,
ab o ve, 893 F .2d at 1483.
C)
...
35
NLRB-FOIA-00008189
Page 1 of1
K earn ey, B arry J.
F ro m :
K earney, B arry J.
S en t:
W edn esday, M a y 04, 2 011 9.30 A M
T o :
S olom on, Lafe E .
S u b ject: R E :
Exemption 5
F ro m : S olom on, Lafe E .
S e n t: W ednesday, M ay 04, 2011 8:38 A M
T o : K earney, B arry J.
S u b je c t: R e:
Let's talk
Exemption 5
S ent from m y B lackB erry W ireless H andheld
F ro m : K earney, B arry J.
T o : S olom on, Lafe E .
S e n t: W ed M ay 04 08:08:39 2011
S u b je c t: R E:
D o you w ant us to draft a reply?
F ro m : S olom on, Lafe E .
S e n t: T uesday, M ay 03, 2011 11:59 A M
T o : C leeland, N ancy; K earney, B arry 1; F arrell, E llen; S ophir, Jaym e; M attina, C eleste 3.; A bruzzo, Jennifer;
A h e a rn , R ich a rd L .; G a rza , Jo se
S u b je c t: Fw d:
Sent from m y m obile
B egin forw arded m essage:
From : "L uttig,M ichael" <m ichael.luttig@ boeing.com >
T o: "Solom on,L afe E ." <L afe.Solom on@ nlrb.goy>
5/4/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008190
P ag e 1 o f 2
F ro m :
S olom on, L afe E .
S e n t:
F riday, A pril 22, 2011 2:20 PM
T o :
K earney, B arry J.
S u b je c t: F W : today's call w ith R ep. Inslee
N ow it's 2 45
F ro m : G arza, Jose
S e n t: F riday, A pril 22, 2011 2:17 PM
T o : S olom on, L afe E .
S u b je c t: F w : to d ay 's call w ith R ep . In slee
T h ey n o w w an t to d o 2 4 5 D o es th at w o rk '? S o rry fo r th e b ack an d fo rth
F ro m : ffitch, E ric < E ric.ffitch@ m ail.house.gov >
T o : G arza, Jose
S en t: F ri A pr 22 14:15:01 2011
S u b je c t: R E : today's call w ith R ep. Inslee
O k,ju st g o t off the phone w ith our scheduler and w e are going to push the call back by 10 m inutes if
that w orks for you guys. T hat w ould m ean calling in at 2:45, rather than the original 2:35 plan. R ep.
Inslee has a 3 pm m eeting as w ell, so it w ill definitely w rap up by around 2:55. D oes that sound good?
F ro m : G arza, Jose [m ailto:Jose.G arza@ n lrb.g ov ]
S e n t: F riday, A pril 22, 2011 1:45 PM
T o : ffitch, E ric
S u b je c t: R e: to d ay 's call w ith R ep . In slee
G reat S o w e sh o u ld call in at 2 .35 9 S orry for m y confusion
F ro m : ffitch, E ric < E ric.ffitch@ m ail.house.gov >
T o : G arza, Jose
S e n t: F ri A pr 22 13:34:55 2011
S u b je c t: R e: to d ay 's call w ith R ep . In slee
H o p in g to h av e it all w rap p ed u p b efo re 3 . T h ey are ru n n in g a b it b eh in d b u t ev en so I th in k it sh o u ld w o rk C all-
in inform ation is below .
Please call 7 1 2 -4 3 2 -0 1 8 0 an d en ter th e p assco d e pass code o jo in th e call.
N L R B A ttendees: L afe S olom on, G eneral C ounsel at N ational L abor R elations B oard; Jose G arza, S pecial C ounsel
fo r C o n g ressio n al an d In terg o v ern m en tal R elatio n s
C ontact: Jose G arza, N L R B , w .(202)273-0013, c.(202)247-5566
O rganizing staff: E ric
4/22/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008191
B arry, in checking the front office voice m ail this m orning there w as a call for you
from A tty R ich ard H en k in ... he left a cell phone num ber privacy-cell phone number
U nfortunately, the call cam e in yesterday @ 11:48, but w asn't retrieved until now
NLRB-FOIA-00008192
I look forward to talking with you on Monday
Original Message
From: Hankins, Richard [mailto:rhankins@mckennalong.com]
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 4:29 PM
Subject: Boeing
Mr. Kearney,
I' v e c o n v e y e d y o u r m e e t i n g r e q u e s t t o B o e i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , a n d t h e y
are discussing it. I hope to let you know something on Monday.' I hope
that is okay with you.
Richard B. Hankins
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
303 Peachtree Street I Suite 5300 Atlanta, Ga 30308
T e l : 4 0 4 . 5 2 7 . 8 3 7 2 I F a x : 4 0 4 . 5 2 7 . 7 0 8 8 I
rhankins@mckennalong.com
C O N F ID E N T IA L IT Y N O T IC E :
This e-mail and any attachments contain information from
the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, and are
intended solely for the use of the named recipient or
recipients. This e-mail may contain privileged
attorney/client communications or work product. Any
dissemination of this e-mail by anyone other than an
i n t e n d e d r e c i p i e n t i s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . If y o u a r e n o t a
named recipient, you are prohibited from any further
viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any
u s e o f t h e e - m a i l o r a t t a c h m e n t s . If y o u b e l i e v e y o u h a v e
received this e-mail in error, notify the sender
immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any
attachments, and all copies thereof from any drives or
storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or
attachments.
/6
K,Ita
rieue4
Ceretz"-V__
NLRB-FOIA-00008193
Page 1 of 1
From :
Sophir, Jaym e
S en t:
M onday, D ecem ber 13, 2010 10 59 A M
T o:
K earney, B arry J., F arrell, E llen
S u b ject: B oeing
F Y I D eb tells m e that the U nion is preparing another paper, w hich they hope to have to us before the
W ednesday m eeting, that w illinclude an inherently destructive argum ent and a sum m ary of the bargaining.
Jaym e S ophir
A ssistan t G ene ral C o unsel
C hief, R egional A dvice B ranch
N ational Labor R elations B oard
202-273-3837
12/13/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008194
Page 1 of1
F ro m : W iIle n , D e b ra L
S e nt:
T u e sd a y, Ja n u a ry 1 1 , 2 0 1 1 1 :2 3 P M
T o:
C ontee, E rnestine R .; K earney, B arry J.; F arrell, E llen; S ophir, Jaynne; S zapiro, M iriam ; K atz, Judy,
O m be rg, B ob , A hea rn , R ichard L.
S u b je c t: FW .IA M m e e tin g w ith A G C , Ja n . 1 9
F ro m : Jude B ryan [m ailto:bryan@ w orkerlaw .corn]
S e n t: T uesday, January 11, 2011 11:54 A M
T o : W illen, D ebra L
C c: D avid C am pbell
S u b je c t: JA M m eeting w ith A G C
M s W IIle n,
In re sponse to your em ail to D a ve C am pb ell, the follow ing p eople w ill be atte nd hg the m ee ting w ith A G C La fe
S olom on next w eek
R ich a rd P M ich a lski, G e n e ra l V ice P re sid e n t, IA M A W
, C h risto p h e r C o rso n , G e n e ra l C o u n se l, IA M A W
N eil G la dstein, D ire ctor S trategic R esou rces, IA M A W
, M a rk B lo n d in , IA M A e ro sp a ce C o o rd in a to r
T om W roblew ski, P resident, IA M D istrict Lodge 751
D avid C am pbell, A ttorney
C arson G lickm an-F lora, A ttorney
Jude B ryan, P aralegal
P lease let us know if there is any m ore inform ation you need
S incerely,
S chw e rin C am pb ell B arnard lglitzin & Lavitt LL P
18 W est M ercer S treet, S te. 400
S eattle, W A 98119
206-285-2828
1/11/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008195
Pag e 1 o f 1
F ro m :
K ilberg P.C ., W illiam [W K ilberg@ gibsondunn.com ]
S e n t:
W ednesday, F ebruary 16, 2011 10:54 A M
T o :
K earney, B arry J.
S u b je c t: got your vm
B arry : I h av e b een in S t L o u is fro m M o n d ay u n til I arriv ed b ack in m y o ffice 5 m in u tes
ag o . I h av e n o t h ad a ch an ce to talk w ith all o f th e fo lk s at B o ein g w h o n eed to co n sid er
th is m atter. A s I ex p lain ed last w eek , it m ay n o t b e u n til th e en d o f th e w eek th at I w ill
h av e so m eth in g d efin itiv e to say . I in ten d to reach o u t to p eo p le to d ay . B ill
W illiam J. K ilb erg
G IB S O N D U N N
G ibson, D unn & C rutcher L L P
1050 C onnecticut A venue, N .W ., W ashington, D C 20036-5306
T el + 1 202.955.8573 F ax + 1 202.530.9559
W K ilberg@ gibsondunn.com w w w .d ib so n d u n n .co m
2/16/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008196
Page 1 of1
K earney, B arry J
From
K i'b erg P C , W illiam [W K ilberg@ gibsondunn corn]
S en t
F riday, M arch 25, 2011 3 18 PM
T o
K earney, B arry J
S u b ject Judge Luttig call
Barry
The Judge's office just forwarded me some times when the
Judge should be available for a call

Monday, noon to 1 PM EDT
or 2 30 - 4 00 PM EDT, Tuesday, 10 AM to 1 PM EDT

Best, Bill
W illiam J K ilberg
G IB S O N D U N N
G ib so n D u n n & C ru tch e r L L P
1 0 5 0 C o n n e cticu t A ve n u e N W W a sh in g to n D C 2 0 0 3 6 -5 3 0 6
T e l+ 1 2 0 2 9 5 5 8 5 7 3 F a x + 1 2 0 2 5 3 0 9 5 5 9
W K ilberg@ gibsondunn corn w w w gibsondunn corn
3/25/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008197
Page 1 of 1
K earney, B arry J
From
Ki!berg P C , W illiam [W Kilberg@ igibsondunn corn]
S en t
Friday, A pril01, 2011 3 38 P M
T o
Kearney, B arry J
S u b ject U pdate
B arry I am in fo rm ed th at B rett G erry h as reach ed o u t to C h ris C o rso n , G C o f th e IA M I
w ill let y o u k n o w w h en th ey co n n ect H av e a g o o d w eek en d B ill
W illia m J K ilb e rg
G IB S O N D U N N
1050 C onnecticut A venue, N W , W ashington, D C 20036 5306
T el+1 202 955 8573 . F ax + 1 202 530 9559
W Kilberg@ gibsondunn corn w w w gibsondunn corn
....
4/1/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008198
Page 1 of 1
F ro m :
K ilberg P .C ., W illiam [W K ilberg(ggibsondunn.corn]
S en t:
F riday, M arch 25, 2011 3:02 P M
T o :
K earney, B arry J.
S u b ject: R E : B oeing
B arry : I h av e h eard b ack fro m th e Ju d g e's o ffice; h e w o u ld lik e to h av e a call eith er M o n d ay o r
T u esd ay . C an y o u g iv e m e so m e tim es th at w o rk fo r L afe? B ill
W illiam J. K i!berg
G IB SO N D U N N
T el + 1 202.955.8573 F ax + 1 202.530.9559
W K ilberg@ gibsondunn.com w w w .g ib so n d u n n .co m
F ro m : K earney, B arry J. [m ailto:barry.kearney@ nlrb.gov]
S e n t: F riday, M arch 25, 2011 1:53 P M
T o : K ilberg P.C ., W illiam
S u b je c t: R E : B oeing
Bill
Is th is call n ecessary ? W h at ev er th ey h ad to say to o n e an o th er w as said last F rid ay . I h av e co m m u n icated th e U n io n 's
response to the no layoff offer. Isn't it tim e to m ove on?
B arry
F ro m : K ilberg P .C ., W illiam [m ailto:W K ilberg@ gibsondunn.com ]
S en t: F riday, M arch 25, 2011 12:38 P M
S u b je c t: R E : B oeing
B arry : I g o t y o u r m essag e; I still d o n o t h av e an an sw er alth o u g h I h av e reach ed o u t ag ain . I
u n d erstan d th at th e Ju d g e w as trav elin g an d I d o n o t k n o w w h ere h e is to d ay . A s so o n as

I
h e a r s o m e th in g , I w ill le t y o u k n o w . B ill
W illiam J. K ilb erg
G IB SO N D U N N
T el + 1 202.955.8573 F ax + 1 202.530.9559
W K ilb e rg g ib so n d u n n .co m w w w .g ib so n d u n n .co m
F ro m : K earney, B arry J. [m ailto:barry.kearney@ nlrb.gov]
S e n t: F riday, M arch 25, 2011 9:28 A M
T o : K ilberg P.C ., W illiam
S u b je c t: B oeing
B ill
I ju st left y o u a v o ice m ail m essag e. W h at is th e statu s o f th e call b etw een th e Ju d g e an d L afe?
B arry
3/25/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008199
N ationalL abor R elations B oard issues com plaint against B oeing
C om pany for unlaw fully transferring w ork to a non-union facility
NL R B A cting G eneralC ounselL afe Solom on toda.'y issued a com plaint against the
B oeing C om pany alleging that it violated federallabor law by deciding to transfer a
second production line to a non-union facility in South C arolina for discrim inatory
reasons.
B oeing announced in 2007 that it planned to assem ble seven 787 D ream liner airplanes
per m onth in the Puget Sound area of W ashington state,w here its em ployees have long
been represented by the InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers.
T he com pany later said that it w ould create a second production line to assem ble an
additionalthree planes a m onth to address a grow ing backlog of orders.In O ctober 2009,
B oeing announced that it w ould locate that second line at the non-union facility.
In repeated statem ents to em ployees and the m edia,com pany executives cited the
unionized em ployees'past strike activity and the possibility of strikes occurring
som etim e in the future as the overriding factors in deciding to locate the second line in
the non-union facility.
T he NL R B launched an investigation of the transfer of second line w ork in response to
charges filed by the M achinists union and found reasonable cause to believe that B oeing
had violated tw o sections of the NationalL abor R elations A ct because its statem ents
w ere coercive to em ployees and its actions w ere m otivated by a desire to retaliate for past
strikes and chillfuture strike activity.
"A w orker's right to strike is a fundam entalright guaranteed by the NationalL abor
R elations A ct," M r.Solom on said."W e also recognize the rights of em ployers to m ake
business decisions based on their econom ic interests,but they m ust do so w ithin the law .
I have w orked w ith the parties to encourage settlem ent in the hope of avoiding costly
litigation,and m y door rem ains open to that possibility."
T o rem edy the alleged unfair labor practices,the A cting G eneralC ounselseeks an order
that w ould require B oeing to m aintain the second production line in W ashington state.
T he com plaint does not seek closure of the South C arolina facility,nor does it prohibit
B oeing from assem bling planes there.
A bsent a settlem ent betw een the parties,the next step in the process w illbe a hearing
before an NL R B adm inistrative law judge in Seattle,set for June 14,at w hich both
parties w illhave an opportunity to present evidence and argum ents.
For m ore inform ation about the NationalL abor R elations B oard,please see our w ebsite
at w w w . n1 rb . g o v .
NLRB-FOIA-00008200
M achinists H ailN L R B C om plaint O ver B oeing South C arolina M ove - 21st C entury L ab...Page 1 of 1.
M a c h in is ts H a il N L R B C o m p la in t O v e r B o e in g S o u th C a ro lin a M o v e
W ed. A pril20, 2011
W ashington,D .C ., A pril 20, 2011 T he International A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers (IA M ) today
w elcom ed the decision by the N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ) to issue a com plaint charging the B oeing C om pany w ith
illegal retaliation against B oeing em ployees in the P uget S ound area. A ccording to the N L R B , B oeing's conduct w as
"inherently destructive" of rights guaranteed to w orkers.
F O R IM M E D IA T E R E L E A S E
W ashington,D .C ., A pril 20, 2011 T he International A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers (IA M ) today
w elcom ed the decision by the N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ) to issue a com plaint charging the B oeing C om pany w ith
illegal retaliation against B oeing em ployees in the P uget S ound area. A ccording to the N L R B , B oeing's conduct w as
"inherently destructive" of rights guaranteed to w orkers.
C lick here to view full text of the N L R B decision.
T he N L R B 's com plaint is in response to an U nfair L abor P ractice charge filed by IA M D istrict 751, w hich represents m ore than
25,000 B oeing em ployees in W ashington state. T he IA M charge cites repeated statem ents by senior B oeing executives that
law ful, protected activity w as the "overriding" factor in the decision to locate a 787 assem bly line in S outh C arolina.
"B oeing's decision to build a 787 assem bly line in S outh C arolina sent a m essage that B oeing w orkers w ould suffer financial
harm for exercising their collective bargaining rights," said IA M V ice P resident R ich M ichalski. "F ederal labor law is clear: it's
illegal to threaten or penalize w orkers w ho engage in concerted activity."
T he decision by B oeing to locate a 787 assem bly line in S outh C arolina follow ed years of 787 production delays and an
extraordinary round of m id-contract talks in w hich the IA M proposed an 11-year agreem ent to provide B oeing w ith the labor
stability it claim ed w as necessary to keep 787 production in the P uget S ound area.
D espite the (A M offer, B oeing w alked aw ay from the talks and signed an agreem ent w ith S outh C arolina that included nearly
$900 m illion in incentives and tax relief in exchange for building a 787 line in N orth C harleston, S outh C arolina.
"B oeing's current m anagem ent needs to rethink its strategy of repeatedly alienating its m ost valuable asset: the highly-skilled
w orkers w ho build B oeing aircraft," said M ichalski. "W e w ill not allow our m em bers to be m ade scapegoats for any purpose."
T he IA M represents m ore than 35,000 B oeing w orkers and is am ong the largest industrial trade unions in N orth A m erica, w ith
nearly 700,000 active and retired m em bers in dozens of industries. F or m ore inform ation about the IA M , visit w w w .goiam .org .
http://w w w .goiam .org/print.php?id=8624
4/20/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008201
P age 1 of 1
F rom :
A hearn, R ichard L.
Sent:
W ednesday, A pril20, 2011 3:04 PM
T o:
K earney, B arry J.; F arrell, E llen
Subject: F W : S enator G raham 's statem ent
Fro m : W agner, A nthony R .
S en t: W ednesday, A pril20, 2011 12:00 PM
T o : C leeland, N ancy; S olom on, Lafe E .; A hearn, R ichard L.; M attina, C eleste J.; G arza, Jose
S u b ject: S enator G raham 's statem ent
http://lgraham .senate.gov/public/index.cfm ?
FuseA ction=PressR oom .PressR eleases& C ontentR ecord id=74179e31-802a-23ad-4e6e-3b1394738c8d
S en a to r G ra h a m P ress R elea ses
C ontact M eghan H ughes (202-224-5972) or K evin B ishop (864-250-1417)
D ate 04/20/2011
G raham on N L R B C om plaint against B oeing
W A SH IN G T O N U .S . S enator Lindsey G raham (R -S outh C arolina) today m ade this statem ent on the N ational
Labor R elations B oard (N LR B ) com plaint against B oeing.
"T his is one of the w orst exam ples of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of specialinterest groups that I've
ever seen In this case, the N LR B is doing the bidding of the unions at great cost to S outh C arolina and our
nation's econom y.
"It m akes perfect sense for a w orld-class com pany like B oeing to diversify their production capabilities. B oeing
m ade a solid business decision in com ing to S outh C arolina, and w e w elcom e them w ith open arm s. T hey could
have gone anyw here, but they knew that S outh C arolina w as a great place to do business. T heir decision to open
their new facility in N orth C harleston w illpay dividends for the com pany, its w orkers, and our state for m any years
to com e. It's a decision that w illstand the test of tim e.
"If successful, the N LR B com plaint w ould allow unions to hold a virtual'veto'over business decisions. Left to their
ow n devices, the N LR B w ould routinely punish right-to-w ork states that value and prom ote their pro-business
clim ates. T he current m akeup of the N LR B B oard has been skew ed against business. T his action w illnot be
allow ed to stand.
"I w ould be surprised if any court recognized the legitim acy of this com plaint. It's pretty easy to see that at its
heart, this is about union politics. A s S enator, I w illdo everything in m y pow er, including introducing legislation
cutting off funding for this w ild goose chase, to stop the N LR B 's frivolous com plaint."
114414#t
4/20/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008202
D eM int Statem ent on O bam a A dm inistration's M alicious A ttack A gainst R ight-T o-W ork ...Page 1 of 2
....
U n ited S tates S en ator Jim D eM in t
N ew s R o o m
R ecen t P ress R elea ses
A p ril 20, 2011
D eM in t S tatem en t on O b am a A d m in istration 's
M aliciou s A ttack A gain st R igh t-T o-W ork S tates
G reenville, S .C .
U .S . S enator Jim D eM int (R -S outh C arolina), chairm an of the S enate S teering C om m ittee, released
the follow ing statem ent in opposition to the N ational L abor R elations B oard com plaint against the
B oeing C om pany. T he com plaint w as m ade based upon charges m ade by a labor union, the
International A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers (IA M ), against B oeing's 2009
decision to expand production facilities to S outh C arolina, a right-to-w ork state, instead of
W ashington, a forced-unionism state.
'T his is nothing m ore than a political favor for the unions w ho are supporting P resident O bam a's re-
election cam paign. U nfortunately, it com es at the expense of hundreds of jobs in S outh C arolina
and thousands of jobs nationw ide. T here is no doubt that if the N ational L abor R elations B oard's
claim against B oeing m oves forw ard, it w ill have a chilling effect on job grow th in m y state and in
right-to-w ork states across the country. U sing the federal governm ent as political w eapon to protect
union bosses at the expense of A m erican jobs cannot be tolerated. I intend to use every tool at m y
disposal as a U nited S tates S enator to stop the P resident from carrying out this m alicious act."
###
iii-oki-iiiiik---0-iff:"F.:;
P rint T his
....
_..
I
. ..
ii '
B row se by:1 -- M o n th -- .1 _ 1 1 -- Y ear --
04/20/11 -
C u rren t reco rd
04/14/11 -
R ep u b lican S en ators In trod u ce 'T erm L im its for A ll' C on stitu tion al A m en d m en t
04/13/11 -
D eM in t: D em ocrats S tu ck on S p en d in g, R ep u b lican s S u p p ort B alan ced B u d get
A m en d m en t
04/01/11 -
S en ate R ep u b lican s P u sh to R ep eal D od d -F ran k F in an cial T ak eover
http://dem int.senate.gov/public/index .cfm ?p=PressR eleases& C ontentR ecordid=cc6d52d2...4/20/2011

NLRB-FOIA-00008203
W all S treet Jo u rn al L etters M ay 1, 2011
B oeing is W rong, the N LR B Is R ight
The recent com plaint filed by the N ational Labor R elations B oard's general counsel
against B oeing's efforts to relocate its production facility from W ashington state to S outh
C arolina has unleashed a flurry of anger am ong big business interests ("The W hite
H ou se vs. B oein g: A Tennessee T ale" by S en . Lam ar A lexander, op-ed , A p ril 26).
This outrage should instead be redirected at B oeing for explicitly and egregiously
breaking the law .It is illegalto retaliate against em ployees exercising their rights to form
a union or strike, and that is exactly w hat the cornpany did. The -com plaint issued w as
based on public com m ents from B oeing executives m aking clear their reasons for
relocation: to avoid strikes by their em ployees.
The general counsel, in exercising his sw orn duty to uphold the N ational Labor
R elations A ct, had no choice but to issue a com plaint against the com pany's violation.
To not have done so w ould send the w rong signal to both A m erican em ployers and
w orkers that it's O K to flagrantly break our labor law s.
D orian W arren
A ssistant P rofessor of P olitical S cience
and P ublic Affairs
C olum bia U niversity
N ew Y o rk
NLRB-FOIA-00008204
NL R B A cting G eneralC ounselL afe Solom on today responded to inquiries regarding a
com plaint issued A pril20 against the B oeing C om pany w ith the follow ing statem ent:
"C ontrary to certain public statem ents m ade in recent w eeks,there is nothing rem arkable
or unprecedented about the com plaint issued against the B oeing C om pany on A pril20.
T he com plaint involves m atters of fact and law that are not unique to this case,and w as
issued only after a thorough investigation in the field,a further round of review by
attorneys in W ashington,and an invitation by m e to the parties to present their case in
oralargum ents.O nly then did I authorize the com plaint alleging that certain statem ents
and decisions by B oeing officials w ere discrim inatory under our statute.
It is im portant to note that the issuance of a com plaint is just the beginning of a legal
process,w hich now m oves to a hearing before an adm inistrative law judge.T hat hearing,
scheduled for June 14 in Seattle,is the appropriate tim e and place to argue the m erits of
the com plaint.T he judge's decision can further be appealed to the B oard,and ultim ately
to the federalcourts.W e w ould hope that allinterested parties respect the legalprocess
rather than trying to litigate this case in the public arena."
M r.Solom on m ade the sam e point today in a brief w ritten response to a letter received
earlier this m onth from B oeing G eneralC ounselJ.M ichaelL uttig.A copy of that
response is attached.
NLRB-FOIA-00008205
site.com
P age 1 of 1
F rom :
S en t:
S atu rd ay, D ecem b er 11, 2010 2:28 PM
T o:
K earney, B arry J.; Farrell, E llen; M attina, C eleste J.; Todd, D ianne; Jablon ski, C olleen G .
S u b ject: Fw : A n article from w w w .thestate.com
A nother!
S ent from m y B lackB erry W ireless H andheld
F rom : R icardo <richahearn@ gm ail.com >
T o: A hearn,R ichard L.
S en t: S at D ec 11 14:17:11 2010
S u b ject: A n article from w w w .thestate.com
R icardo has sent you the follow ing story:
P o sted o n T h u rsd a y , D ec. 0 9 , 2 0 1 0 '
U n io n o p p o n e n t ta p p e d fo r la b o r c h ie f
B y JO H N O 'C O N N O R
G o v.-elect N ikki H aley h as m o ved to p ro tect B o ein g C o ., th e state's recen tly arrived aero sp ace g ian t, n o m in i
union-fighting attorney to head the agency that oversees business licensing, professional boards and the lab
enforcem ent.
H aley said she chose C harleston attorney C atherine Tem pleton w hose O gletree D eakins bio lists "union a%
as a sp ecialty as d irecto r o f th e D ep artm en t o f L ab o r, L icen sin g an d R eg u latio n to p reven t o rg an ized lab o i
g ain in g a fo o th o ld in th e 787 D ream lin er p lan t n o w u n d er co n stru ctio n . B o ein g execu tives said S o u th C aro lir
u n io n h isto ry w as a key facto r in th eir d ecisio n to o p en a n ew p lan t o u tsid e th eir lo n g -tim e h o m e in th e S eat
"I th in k w e're g o in g to h ave a u n io n fig h t as w e g o fo rw ard w ith B o ein g ," H aley said in an n o u n cin g T em p letc
nom ination.
R ead M o re...
12/13/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008206
1099 le S T R E E T N W
'\
U
lc
I
\ b k la
1+0 A I:o
w w w .n!rb.gov
M ay 9 , 2 0 1 1
J. M ich a e l L u ttig , E sq u ire
E xe cu tive V ice P re sid e n t & G e n e ra l C o u n se l
1 0 0 N R ive rsid e M C 5 0 0 3 -6 0 2 7
C h ica g o , IL 6 0 6 0 6 -1 5 9 6
D e a r M r. L u ttig :
R e : T h e B o e in g C o m p a n y
C a se 1 9 -C A -3 2 4 3 1
T h is is in re sp o n se to yo u r M a y 3 le tte r to m e co n ce rn in g th e a b o ve
ca p tio n e d ca se .
Y o u r le tte r m a ke s ce rta in a sse rtio n s a n d a rg u m e n ts co n ce rn in g
sta te m e n ts in th e p re ss a b o u t th is m a tte r. N e e d le ss to sa y, I d o n 't a g re e w ith
yo u r co n te n tio n s. T h e re h a ve b e e n n u m e ro u s co n ve rsa tio n s b e tw e e n m y o ffice
a n d B o e in g co n ce rn in g th e fa cts a n d th e la w su rro u n d in g th e circu m sta n ce s o f
th is ca se so th a t e a ch p a rty is a w a re o f th e o th e r's p o sitio n . T h e a p p ro p ria te
fo ru m to te st th o se p o sitio n s a n d th e re le va n ce a n d p ro b a tive va lu e o f yo u r
a sse rtio n s is th ro u g h th e d e ve lo p m e n t o f a n e vid e n tia ry re co rd o n w h ich a n
a d m in istra tive la w ju d g e ca n m a ke a d e cisio n w h ich ca n b e re vie w e d b y th e
B o a rd a n d u ltim a te ly th e C o u rts. F in a lly, w h ile o u r e a rlie r e ffo rts to re so lve th is
m a tte r w e re u n su cce ssfu l, I still re m a in o p e n to a re so lu tio n b e tw e e n th e p a rtie s.
S in c e e l
L a fe /E . S o lo m o n
A ctin g G e n e ra l C o u n se l
NLRB-FOIA-00008207
Page 1 of 1
W illen , D eb ra L
From :
Jude B ryan [bryan@ w orkerlaw .com ]
Sent:
Tuesday,S eptem ber 21, 2010 2:26 PM
T o:
VVillen,D ebra L
C c:
D avid C am pbell; C arson G lickm an-Flora; K athy B arnard
Subject: IA M A W D istrict Lodge 751 v.B oeing,N LR B R egion 19 C ase N o.19-C A -32431
D ear M s.V V illen:
I am the paralegal assisting the attorneys representing the U nion in this m atter. Follow ing is
the contact inform ation for our attorneys:
cam pbell@ w orkerllaw .com
D avid C am pbell
flora@ w orkerlaw .com
barnard@ w orkerlaw .com
K athleen P hair B arnard
S chw erin C am pbell B arnard lglitzin & Lavitt LLP
S eattle, W A 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828 (p h o n e)
(206) 378-4132 (fax)
If w e can provide you w ith any additional inform ation on this m atter, please let m e know .
Ju d e B ryan , P araleg al I S ch w erin C am p b ell B arn ard Ig litzin & L avitt L L P I 18 W est M ercer S treet, S te. 400, S eattle, W A 98119-3971;
P h o n e. 206 285.2828 E xt 21; F ax 206-378-4132 I w w w w orkerlaw corn
T h is co m m u n icatio n is in ten d ed fo r a sp ecific recip ien t an d n ay b e p ro tected b y th e atto rn ey clien t an d w o rk -p ro d u ct p riv ileg e
If y o u receiv e th is m essag e in erro r p lease p erm an en tly d elete it an d n o tify th e sen d er
10/19/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008208
P P '
N L R B A cting G eneral C ounsel L afe Solom on today responded to inquiries regarding a
com plaint issued A pril 20 against the B oeing C om pany w ith the follow ing statem ent:
"C ontrary to certain public statem ents m ade in recent w eeks,there is nothing rem arkable
or unprecedented about the com plaint issued against the B oeing C om pany on A pril 20.
T he com plaint involves m atters of fact and law that are not unique to this case,and w as
issued only after a thorough investigation in the field, a further careful review by
attorneys in W ashington,and an invitation by m e to the parties to present their case and
discuss the possibility of a settlem ent.O nly then did I authorize the com plaint alleging
that certain statem ents and decisions by B oeing officials w ere discrim inatory under our
statute.
It is im portant to note that the issuance of a com plaint is just the beginning of a legal
process,w hich now m oves to a hearing before an adm inistrative law judge.T hat hearing,
scheduled for June 14 in Seattle,is the appropriate tim e and place to argue the m erits of
the com plaint.T he judge's decision can further be appealed to the B oard, and ultim ately
to the federal courts.A t any point in this process,the parties could reach a settlem ent
agreem ent and w e rem ain w illing to participate in any such discussions at the request of
either or both parties. W e hope all interested parties respect the legal process, rather than
trying to litigate this case in the m edia and public arena."
M r.Solom on m ade the sam e point today in a brief w ritten response to a letter received
earlier this m onth from B oeing G eneral C ounsel J. M ichael L uttig.A copy of that
response is attached.
NLRB-FOIA-00008209
P a g e 1 o f2
Fro m :
F erguson, John H
S e n t:
T h ursday, O cto ber 0 7, 20 10 3 -55 P M
T o :
K earney, B arry J.
S u b je c t: R E .B oeing as a runaw ay shop'?
S u re I w o u ld like to see th e m e m o w h en it is d o n e as in d ica ted in m y e m a il, th e re is a lot to ge t yo u r h ea d
a ro u n d in th is a re a , a n d I n e e d to d ig d e e p e r
W hate ver S calia does w ill b e ugly, com bining M ilw aukee S prings ll m id contract re location bargainin g and the
hard nosed H K P orter/T W A /Lockou t cases p erspective that th e free p lay ofe conom ic w e apons n otion m a kes it
easy to und erstand w hy unio ns w ant to strike in sum m er an d em plo yers w ant to lockou t in w inte r and w h y the
IA M lo ve s S e a ttle a n d B o e in g 's n e w lo ve is A la b a m a S o fa r a s S ca lia is co n ce rn e d , th e fa ct th a t o n e sid e o r th e
other is see king hig her g ro und on w hich to figh t, h aving be en earlier bloo die d in th e valle y, is in the nature o f
e co n o m ic w a rfa re a n d o fn o co n ce rn to th e co u rts T
Exemption 5
Fro m : K earney, B arry J.
S e n t: T hursday, O ctober 07, 2010 2:55 P M
T o : F erguson, John H .
S u b je c t: R E : B oeing as a runaw ay shop?
B oeing doesn't at least for now contend that striking m akes for higher labor costs and that is w hy they are m oving
In fact it is ch eaper a nd m ore efficient to put the w ork in P uge t S oun d T hey contend that strikes m ake it harder
for them to deliver planes to their custom er and that is a sufficient business justification to m ove because the
U nion w on't agree now m id-co ntract to a 22 ye ar no strike pledg e W hat d o you th ink S calia w ill do w ith that'? D o
you w ant to see the m em o w hen it is done'?
Fro m : F erguson, John H .
S e n t: T hursday, O ctober 07, 2010 2:29 P M
S u b je c t: B oeing as a runaw ay shop ,
Exemption 5
10 /7 /2 0 10
NLRB-FOIA-00008210
Page 2 of 2
Exemption 5
10/7/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008211
Page 1 of 2
K ea rn ey , B a rry J .
F ro m :
S o lo m o n , L a fe E .
S e n t:
T h u rsd a y, M a y 0 5 , 2 0 1 1 1 1 :5 8 A M
T o :
G a rza , Jo se
C c:
K e a rn e y, B a rry J.; A b ru zzo , Je n n ife r
S u b je ct: R e : H o u se C o m m itte e o n E d u ca tio n a n d th e W o rkfo rce O ve rsig h t R e q u e st
I a m o n th e p la n e a n d is a 3 h o u r flig h t. I a m w illin g to ca ll a ro u n d 4 yo u r tim e b u t fe e l fre e to d e cid e e ve ryth in g
Exemption 5
w ith o u t m e . I tru st m y te a m . M y o n ly q u e stio n
S e n t fro m m y B la ckB e rry W ire le ss H a n d h e ld
Fro m : G arza, Jose
T o : S olo m on, La fe E .
C c: K e a rn e y, B a rry J.; A b ru zzo , Je n n ife r
S e n t: T h u M a y 0 5 1 1 :1 8 :0 7 2 0 1 1
S u b je c t: R e : H o u se C o m m itte e o n E d u ca tio n a n d th e W o rkfo rce O ve rsig h t R e q u e st
B a rry a n d Je n n ife r,
D o yo u a n d th e re st o f /o u r te a m h a ve a fe w m in u te s to m e e t a b o u t th is? W e ca n g e t L a fe o n th e p h o n e d u rin g o r
a fte r if h e is a va ila b le .
T h a n k yo u ,
Jo se
Fro m : S olom on, Lafe E .
T o : G arza, Jose
S e n t: T h u M a y 0 5 1 1 :1 2 :2 6 2 0 1 1
S u b je c t: R e : H o u se C o m m itte e o n E d u ca tio n a n d th e W o rkfo rce O ve rsig h t R e q u e st
I'm o n m y w a y to d a lla s. W e ca n ta lk b y p h o n e if yo u a re a va ila b le . I fo rw a rd e d th e re q u e st to b a rry ke a rn e y,
je n n ife r, ce le ste , a n d a b e a m .
S e n t fro m m y B la ckB e ri-y W ire le ss H a n d h e ld
Fro m : G arza, Jose
T o : S olo m on, La fe E .
S en t: T hu M ay 05 1 1:06:1 0 201 1
S u b ject: R e : H o u se C o m m itte e o n E d u ca tio n a n d th e W o rkfo rce O ve rsig h t R e q u e st
Lafe,
I'm o n m y w a y in to th e o ffice n o w . D o yo u h a ve tim e to m e e t a b o u t th is to d a y?
T h a n k yo u ,
Jose
5/5/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008212
Page 2 of 2
F rom : K aplan, M arvin < M arvin.K aplan@ m ail.house.gov >
T o: S olom on, L afe E .
C c: G arza, Jose; G ilroy, E d < E d.G ilroy@ m ail.house.gov > ; S erafin, K enneth < K enneth.S erafin@ m ail.house.gov > ;
N ew ell, B rian < B rian.N ew ell@ m ail.house.gov > ; P earce, K risann < K risann.P earce@ m ail.house.gov >
S en t: T hu M ay 05 11:00:51 2011
S u b ject: H ouse C om m ittee on E ducation and the W orkforce O versight R equest
A ttached is a request for docum ents and com m unications relating to A pril 20, 2011 com plaint against T he
B oeing C orporation. W e look forw ard to your tim ely and com plete response.
M arvin E .K aplan
P rofession al S taff M em b er
C om m ittee on E ducation and the W orkforce
2181 R ayburn H ouse O ffice B uilding
W ashington, D .C . 20515
(202)225-4527
.
I.
rr
5/5/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008213
Fire on B oeing 787 D ream liner H alts Test Flights - N Y Tim es.com
Cr;he:New ilorkeintes
R ep rints
T h is co p y is fo r yo u r p e rso n a l, n o n co m m e rcia l u se o n ly Y o u ca n o rd e r p re se n ta tio n -re a d y
co p ie s fo r d istrib u tio n to yo u r co lle a g u e s, clie n ts o r cu sto m e rs h e re o r u se th e "R e p rin ts" to o l
th a t a p p e a rs n e xt to a n y a rticle V isit w w w .n ytre p rin ts.co m fo r sa m p le s a n d a d d itio n a l
in fo rm a tio n O rd e r a re p rin t o f th is a rticle n o w
Page 1 of 3
P R IN T E R ..R IE N 3a F O P M A I
S R IS S A E O E Y
In T h eaters
N ow
N o vem b er 10. 2010
In -F ligh t F ire E n d an gers D elivery D ate
for B oein g 787
B y C H R IS T O P H E R D R E W
B oeing halted test flights on W ednesday of its 787 D ream liner,a day after an onboard fire
forced an em ergency landing,reinforcing expectations that the long-aw aited plane faced m ore
delays.
Severalanalysts said they doubted that B oeing,w hich is counting on the jet to vault it past
A irbus in totalsales,w ould m eet its plan to deliver the first 787 by February.
T he plane,the first passenger jet m ade substantially w ith lightw eight carbon com posites that
are supposed to greatly cut fuelcosts,is already running nearly three years late.A nd given
other recent problem s w ith suppliers and a test engine,som e analysts said,B oeing m ight be
able to deliver only about tw o dozen of the planes next year,dow n from earlier estim ates of 40
to 50 or m ore.
"T here w illbe another delay," said R ichard L .A boulafia,vice president for analysis at the T eal
G roup,an aviation consulting firm in Fairfax,V a.
E ven if the fire had not occurred on the test plane,"there w ould still be another delay," he said.
"T here are stilltoo m any unknow ns."
B oeing said W ednesday that it w as evaluating w hat had gone w rong on the test flight and had
suspended flights for its six test planes.
C om pany officials said sm oke entered the cabin from an electronics com partm ent in the rear of
the plane,forcing an em ergency landing in L aredo,T ex.Forty-tw o engineers and crew
http://w w w .nytim es.com /2010/11/1 1 /businessillboeing.htm l?_r= 1& src= busln& pagew an... 11/16/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008214
P age 2 of 3 .
m em bers w ere aboard.O ne suffered m inor injuries in evacuating by slide.
B oeing has been counting heavily on the D ream liner,w hich has attracted m ore advance orders
847 than any plane in history.Its shares fell3.2 percent,to $67.037 a share,in trading on
W ednesday.
B oeing said in a statem ent that it appeared that a pow er controlpanelin the electronics
com partm ent w ould need to be replaced,and other repairs m ight be necessary.It said it w ould
take severaldays to analyze data from the test flight to determ ine the severity of the problem .
B oeing added that it "cannot determ ine the im pact of this event on the overallprogram
schedule untilw e have w orked our w ay through the data."
T he FederalA viation A dm inistration,w hich m ust certify new planes as safe,is also
investigating w hat caused the fire.
H ans J.W eber,an independent safety consultant,said if the fire stem m ed from a flaw in basic
electricalcom ponents,the problem could be relatively easy to fix.B ut if it w ere linked to m ore
advanced electricalcontrols that help the D ream liner save fuel,that could require m ore tim e-
consum ing changes.T he plane's developm ent has been m arred by persistent problem s w ith
B oeing's far-flung supply netw ork.C om pany executives have acknow ledged that they farm ed
out too m uch design and production w ork and did not initially keep close enough tabs on
suppliers.
B ut even though they have m ade an all-out push to m eet their latest delivery schedule,m ore
problem s have cropped up over the last severalm onths.
A R olls-R oyce engine m eant to be used in one of the 787 test planes failed in a test plant in
B ritain in A ugust,spew ing out debris.
B oeing cited that engine problem in saying it w ould push back delivery of the first D ream liner
for the fifth tim e,from late this year to February 2011. R olls-R oyce has said it is confident it can
fix the engine by that date.
R olls-R oyce also said this w eek that the problem on the engine for B oeing did not seem to be
related to the failure last w eek of another R olls-R oyce engine on an A irbus A 38c) jum bo jet.
T hat engine jettisoned debris w hile the plane,operated by Q antas A irw ays,w as in flight.
http://w w w .nytim es.com /2010/11-11 1 /businessillboeing.htm l?_r=1& src=busln& pagew an...11/16/2010

NLRB-FOIA-00008215
.. .
Page 3 of 3
B oeing has had to tellsuppliers around the w orld to halt parts deliveries three tim es this year
because A lenia A eronautica,a unit of Finm eccanica of Italy,could not deliver the 787's
horizontaltails on tim e. The latest parts delay occurred in late O ctober.B oeing officials have
said that poor w orkm anship by A lenia and other suppliers forced B oeing to rew ork m any parts,
further slow ing its production line.
A lenia agreed last w eek to fix the problem s by year-end.
M r.A boulafia,the T ealG roup analyst,said he doubted that B oeing w ould be ready to deliver
the first D ream liner before the second quarter of 2011. R obertSpingarn,an analystatC redit
Suisse,said that before the fire broke out on the test plane,he had also concluded that the first
delivery w as notlikely untilA pril.W ith allthe rew orking of parts,he said,"the aircraft,at this
point,is being hand-built." H e said B oeing knew there w as "an im portant statem ent to be
m ade" in delivering that first plane as soon as possible.
B ut he said that B oeing stillhad so m any fixes to m ake on the next 2 0 to 2 5 planes that it w ould
be hard pressed to deliver m ore than 27 planes next year.
R obertStallard,an analystw ith R B C C apitalM arkets,said in a research note earlier this w eek
that B oeing executives told him on M onday that assem bly of m any of the first 30 aircraft w ould
take longer than expected.M r.Stallard said he now expected B oeing to deliver only 24 of the
planes in 2011.
H e said B oeing's chief executive,W .Jam es M cN erney Jr.,w ho w as at the m eeting,believed that
the com pany w ould probably need to build 40 to 50 D ream liners before overcom ing allthe
potentialproblem s.
Still,investors have been patient w ith B oeing over the delays.It stillhas a tw o- to three-year
edge over A irbus in building m ore fuel-efficient carbon planes,and the dem and for new planes
is strong as airlines em erge from the recession.
http://w w w .nytim es.com /2010/11/11/businessillboeing.htm l?J=1& src=busln& pagew an..

.11/16/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008216
Page 1 of 4
C harleston R egionalB usiness JournalI C harleston,SC
S earch:
C H A R L E S T O N R C G 1O N A L
USINESS JOURNAL
T u esd ay, N o vem b er 16, 2010
pp]
H O M E
C on tact U s
N E W S
A b ou t U s
N eed H elp ?
C O M M U N IT Y
SU B SC R IP T IO N S
E V E N T S
JO B S
G ot N ew s?
R E SO U R C E S
A D V E R T ISE
R SS
',414013131,;
cc, o tP A N Y M
11111=M ffill
'
E S I pkr, S l:D C IA .
T E S
r.
S C IL,171191ti..
E .V C N I P P A ILIU C T IO N
V IN S IA L L I:1 1 6 N
B o ein g ex ecu tiv e sa y s S .C . is
W 1.1.? ,A 1'..P 0 +A S T P ,G E .c:O lV i
.7"-P . 6 4 3 .5 5 4 ".3 4 6 6 ,
V ID E O P P O U u e l IO N
S h areT h is
'corn erston e' of com p an y's fu tu re
B y D an iel B rock
d b rock @ scb izn ew s.com
Pu b lish ed N o v. 12, 2010
A B oein g C o. execu tive said T h u rsd ay th at th e co m p an y p lan s to m ake its S .C . operations the "cornerstone" of the plane-
m aker's future.
R ay C on n er, vice president and generalm anager of supply chain m anagem ent and operations for the
plane-m aker,said that B oeing's and the state's efforts to train w orkers here w illeventually "m ake
S outh C arolina one of the great,great aerospace regions in the w orld."
C onner's com m ents,during a speech at the S .C . C h am b er of C om m erce's 31st annualsum m it at the
W ild D unes R esort,seem ed to support talk am ong industry experts w ho say that C harleston could
becom e B oeing's focalpoint in the years ahead.
C onner,an industry veteran w ho started w ith B oeing in 1977 as a m echanic he describes him self as a "B oeing P uget
http://w w w .charlestonbusiness.com /new s/36827-boeing-executive-says-s-c-is-Isquo-corn..

. 11/16/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008217
Page 2 of 4

Sound guy" said the com pany is evolving.
"W hen Iw as first given the assignm ent," he said,"Iw as really excited about the opportunity to have a role in creating a new
B oeing,and that's really w hat w e're doing here,w e're creating a new B oeing."
That sentim ent w illcom e into focus over the next severalm onths,as B oeing com pletes its 787 D ream liner plant in N orth
C harleston and production begins in July 2011.The first w ide-body jets are scheduled to rollout of the $750 m illion facility
in 2012.
W hen the line is fully operational,three planes w illbe churned out each m onth.
"For the last 94 years,our com pany has been S eattle's m ost recognizable," C onner said."A nd every airplane,every
com m ercialairplane,that w e have delivered has com e out of one our hangars on the Puget S ound.In early 2012,that is no
longer going to be the case."
A lthough the first D ream liners from that Puget Sound plant,in Everett,W ash. are supposed to be delivered in M arch,
a fire aboard a test flight M onday has indefinitely halted the testing program w hile the com pany investigates.
B oeing officials said that a pow er controlpanelfailure led to an insulation fire that caused "significant" dam age to the panel.
Further inspection w illtake severaldays.It rem ains unclear w hether significant dam age w as done to any adjacent structure
or system s,or w hether the incident w illcause delivery delays,officials said.
"W e just had a slight little m ishap the other day," C onner said during his speech."That's w hy w e flight-test,right?"
B oeing lost eight 787 sales this w eek,yet C onner said that 30% to 40% of the com pany's $321 billion backlog is tied to the
new plane,w hich is three years behind schedule after num erous setbacks.
A s for the w ork force in S outh C arolina,C onner said that som eone w ho starts as a new hire at the N orth C harleston plant
could one day run it or assum e an even larger role w ith B oeing.
"It happens," he said.
R each D anielB rock at 843-849-3144.
. %
. 'S *
,R T
C om m ents:
Leave N ew C om m ent
N am e
Em ail
hftp ://w w w .charlestonbusiness.com /new s/36827-bo eing-executive-says-s-c-is-lsquo-com ...11/16/2010

NLRB-FOIA-00008218
Page 3 of 4
C harleston R egional B usiness JournalI C harleston,SC
C om m ents
S ubm it
A nsw ering questions
y o u h a v en 't s,
even thought
http://w w w .charlestonbusiness.com /new s/36827-boeing-executive-says-s-c-is-lsquo-corn..

. 11/16/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008219
Page 4 of 4
T R ID E N T
T E C H N IC A L
C O L L E G E
C o n tin u in g E d u ca tio n
'G W dbye:foner cartridges
and w astefulpackaging
400:
2010 SC B izN ew s A llR ights R eserved P rivacy P olicy I T erm s
http://w w w .charlestonbusiness.com /new s/36827-boeing-executive-says-s-c-is-lsquo-corn..

. 11/16/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008220
B oeing to Fight N L R B C om plaint B acked by U nion :: en.A sturi.as
H o m e
P u b lish P ress R elease
asturbs
Page 1 of 4
C o n tact u s
Theaia-1
In te rn a tio n a l N e w s
& P re ss R e le a se s
1114
A ll th e n ew s
A d s b y G oogle
U nion
C om plaint
B oeing
F iling a C om plaint
(K eyW ord:V ote for the IA M A W }
C ontinentalA ttendants E njoyU nlim ited Trip Trading.V ote IA M
youtube.com /iam now 2011
tiW atch this video on w w w .you tu b e.com
B o e in g to F ig h t N L R B C o m p la in t B a c k e d b y U n io n
"
-
Tmo
o,,
" '"y.
'"*

'..:........*-
4=ma.
W orstD
octor
.11,2
,.,--
---V -,-- .
-.1'";!.1
rsousirt know
E ver!!!!!!!11111
1 11
-0
breR th
Sr'''f-1:13 L..0',.,'
,la
h e 's
sw e :his ekic for like r;c1'

s 1,w5.
-;.,p i-ifij . -,:

aliSd
in g R O S T :d ?I)r
u!=.-21
,t,thna ro'f,...nPi,.?"1,
ile.,'i:arl
IL.7.474-ar"Li
C ji,i
ftS,
Vi
:3
`",
t.
ril%
7_,It
....- ..,-
te t'f'.,"
* . -

--
T h e B o ein g C o m p an y said it w ill vig o ro u sly
co n test a co m p lain t b ro u g h t b efo re th e
N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s B o ard (N L R B )
to d ay b y th e lead ersh ip o f th e In tern atio n al
A sso ciatio n o f M ach in ists an d A ero sp ace
W o rkers (IA M ).T h e co m p lain t ch allen g es
B o ein g 's 2009 d ecisio n to co m p lem en t its
p ro d u ctio n cap acity in W ash in g to n state
w ith a n ew assem b ly p lan t in S o u th C aro lin a
an d seeks to fo rce B o ein g to p lace its
seco n d 787 fin al assem b ly lin e in P u g et
S o u n d in stead o f C h arlesto n .
',,::: ' ''' ''.." " " . ''''''' '''''' " :.'
"T h is claim is leg ally frivo lo u s an d
rep resen ts a rad ical d ep artu re fro m b o th
N L R B an d S u p rem e C o u rt p reced en t," said
B o ein g E xecu tive V ice P resid en t an d
rep u tatio n co rn
G en eral C o u n sel J.M ich ael L u ttig ."B o ein g
h as every rig h t u n d er b o th fed eral law an d
its co llective b arg ain in g ag reem en t to b u ild
ad d itio n al U .S .p ro d u ctio n cap acity o u tsid e o f th e P u g et S o u n d reg io n ."
U n io n o fficials h ave b een p ressin g th e N L R B fo r m o re th an a year to b rin g fo rw ard th e co m p lain t an d
fo rce B o ein g to ab an d o n p lan s to p ro d u ce th ree 787 airp lan es p er m o n th in th e co m p an y's n ew N o rth
C h arlesto n , S .C ., facto ry an d b u ild th em in stead in P u g et S o u n d .W ith to d ay's actio n b y th e N L R B 's
actin g g en eral co u n sel, th e b o ard n o w w ill b eg in a fo rm al p ro ceed in g to h ear th e IA M 's alleg atio n s.
B o ein g also w as critical o f th e tim in g o f th e co m p lain t, w h ich co m es

a fu ll 1 7 m o n th s a fter th e
http://en.asturi.as/noticias/46877fboeing fight nlrb com plaint backed by union!
4/20/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008221
-'B oeing to FightN L R B C om plaintB acked by U nion ::en.A sturi.as
Page 2 of4
com pany announced plans to expand its m anufacturing capacity in the U nited S tates in S outh
C arolina.C onstruction of the factory is nearly com plete and the com pany has hired m ore than 1,000
new w orkers.Final assem bly of the first airplane is slated to begin in July.
B oeing has m ade it clear that none of the production jobs created in S outh C arolina has com e at the
expense of jobs in P uget S ound and that not a single union m em ber has been adversely affected.In
fact, IA M em ploym ent in P uget S ound has increased by approxim ately 2,000 w orkers since the
decision to expand in S outh C arolina w as m ade in O ctober 2009.
P rior to that decision,B oeing held extensive discussions w ith the IA M over the potentialplacem ent of
the new 787 production capacity in P uget S ound.Those discussions ended w ith B oeing unable to
reach agreem ent w ith union leadership on dem ands that w ould have ham pered the com pany's
com petitiveness in the increasingly com petitive globalm arket for large com m ercialairplanes.
Luttig said B oeing w as confident that the claim w ould be rejected by the federalcourts.H e also
em phasized that the com pany w illbegin assem bling 787s in S outh C arolina this sum m er,as planned.
"W e fully expect to com plete our new state-of-the-art facility in S outh C arolina in the w eeks ahead,
and w e w illbe producing 787s ? A m erica's next great export ? from our factories in both P uget S ound
and S outh C arolina for decades to com e," he said.
C ontact:
T im N eale, 703-465-3220
SO U R C E B oeing
N ew s from P R N ew sw ire U S A - C H IC A G O ,A pril20,2011
S h a re : a g il II.
N e w s fro m - 2 0 1 1 -0 4 -2 0 1 9 :4 8 :0 2 S e ctio n :
U S A .
C o m m en ts
B e th e firs t to c o m m e n t
A d d yo u r co m m en t
Y our nam e
Y our e-m ail (private)
C om m ent
E ve ry D a y is E a rth D a y fo r Y u le x
http://en.asturi.as/noticias/46877/boeing_fight_nlrb_com plaint_backed_by_union/
4/20/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008222
_ B oeing and the N .L .R .B .- N Y T im es.com
b.
Ehr:Nom pork mows
R eprints
This copy is for your personal, n o n co m m e rcia l u se o n ly Y o u ca n o rd e r p re se n ta tio n -re a d y
copies for distribution to your co lle a g u e s. d ie n ts o r cu sto m e rs here or L.se the "R eprints" tool
that appears next to any article V isit w w w .n ytre p rin ts.co m fin sa m p lu s a r-a additiona
inform ation O rder a reprint o f th is a rticle n o w
Page 1 of 2
W IN N E R
SU N G A N C E
. . ,
A pril 25, 2011
B oeing and the N .L .R .B .
It m ay be a difficult case to Prove,but the com plaint filed last m onth by the N ationalL abor
R elations B oard against B oeing is a w elcom e effort to defend w orkers'right to collective
bargaining.
T he N .L .R .B .is accusing the com pany of setting up a nonunion production line in South
C arolina to retaliate against unionized w orkers in W ashington State for striking.T he board
w ants to force B oeing to m ake allof its new D ream liner jets in W ashington,rather than m ake
30 percent of them at the new line in C harleston.
T he case hinges on proving B oeing's intent.It is illegalto retaliate against w orkers for striking
there have been four strikes at the W ashington facility since 1989 or threaten w orkers in
order to discourage strikes.B ut the com pany can decide to locate production in South C arolina
because it m akes business sense and m ay include "production stability" as a factor in its
d ecision . '
B oeing says it w ants to diversify its assem bly to m ake it less vulnerable to disruptions caused by
potentialfuture strikes.Further com plicating the N .L .R .B .'s case,B oeing says opening the line
in South C arolina w illnot lead to layoffs in W ashington,w here it is adding jobs,too.
T he N .L .R .B .'s action lands squarely on an am biguity in the nation's labor protections w hich
enshrine the right to collective bargaining yet allow com panies w ays to avoid it by going to
another state.
T oday,1 out of 13 private sector w orkers is in a union,dow n from about 1 in 4 in the early
1970s.M any forces are contributing to this erosion,including globalization and the decline of
m anufacturing.B ut one im portant force is the flight of com panies to "right-to-w ork" states
http://w w w .nytim es.com 12011/04/26/opinion/26tue2.htm l?_r=2& ref=opinion& pagew ante..

.
4/26/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008223
B oeing and the N .L .R .B .- N Y T im es.com
Page 2 of2
w here w orkers cannot be required to join a union.C urrently,unionized w orkers nationally
m ake 19 percent m ore than nonunion w orkers,on average.
T he N .L .R .B .'s case rests on statem ents by B oeing officials that,it believes,prove retaliation.
O ne B oeing executive told T he Seattle T im es that the m ain reason to put the new line in South
C arolina w as "thatw e cannotafford to have a w ork stoppage,you know ,every three years."
A hearing before an adm inistrative law judge is scheduled for June.T he judge's decision can be
appealed to the fullboard,and the board's decision can be appealed in federalcourt.If the
N .L .R .B .'s position is upheld,this case could draw som e clearer lines on w hat businesses can
and cannot do to avoid dealing w ith unions.A t the very least,this case w illshed light on the
business strategies em ployed by a pow erfulcom pany to resist unionization.
http://w w w .nytim es.com /2011/04/26/opinion/26tue2.htm l?J=2& ref=opinion& pagew ante.. .4/26/2011

NLRB-FOIA-00008224
Ex-L O or B oard C hairm an: U nion-B acked C ase A gainst B oeing 'U nprecedented'- FoxN e... Page 1 of 2
Pont
C lo se
E x-L ab or B oard C h airm an : U n ion -B ack ed C ase A gain st
B oein g 'U n p reced en ted '
B y Judson B erger
P ublished A pril 26,2011'F oxN ew s m m
T h e fo rm e r ch a irm a n o f th e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd to ld F o xN e w s co rn
th a t a b o a rd a tto rn e y's b id to sto p B o e in g fro m o p e n in g a p ro d u ctio n lin e a t a
n o n -u n io n site in S o u th C a ro lin a is "u n p re ce d e n te d " a n d co u ld h a ve se rio u s
im p lica tio n s fo r co m p a n ie s lo o kin g to e xp a n d
T h e co m m e n ts T u e sd a y fro m P e te r S ch a u m b e r a d d to th e ro ilin g d e b a te o ve r
th e co m p la in t file d la st w e e k a g a in st th e a e ro sp a ce g ia n t N L R B 's a ctin g
g e n e ra l co u n se l, ta kin g u p a lle g a tio n s fro m u n io n w o rke rs a t a P u g e t S o u n d
p la n t in W a sh in g to n sta te , h a d a ccu se d B o e in g o f vio la tin g fe d e ra l la b o r la w b y
m o vin g to o p e n a se co n d 7 8 7 D re a m lin e r a irp la n e p ro d u ctio n lin e in S o u th
C a ro lin a
T h e co m p la in t h in g e d o n cla im s th a t B o e in g m a d e "co e rcive sta te m e n ts"
re g a rd in g u n io n -le d strike s, a n d th e n re ta lia te d b y tra n sfe rrin g its se co n d lin e to
.'
'
'11
a n o n -u n io n fa cility A s e vid e n ce , th e N L R B n o te d th a t a B o e in g e xe cu tive sa id
in a n in te rvie w th a t th e o ve rrid in g fa cto r in g o in g to S o u th C a ro lin a -- a rig h t-to -
w o rk sta te w h e re u n io n s ca n n o t fo rce e m p lo ye e s to jo in -- w a s a d e sire to a vo id d isru p tio n s

T h e u n io n in W a sh in g to n sta te h a s le d
se ve ra l strike s a g a in st B o e in g sin ce th e 1 9 7 0 s, m o st re ce n tly in 2 0 0 5 a n d 2 0 0 8
B u t S ch a u m b e r sa id th e co m p la in t is a b ig stre tch a n d w o u ld m a rk a d e p a rtu re H e sa id th a t if th e cla im is u p h e ld , it co u ld
je o p a rd ize a n y co m p a n y w ith u n io n ize d w o rke rs th a t w a n ts to e xp a n d to a rig h t-to -w o rk sta te
"It w o u ld b e fa ir to sa y its u n p re ce d e n te d ," h e sa id
S ch a u m b e r, a B u sh a d m in istra tio n a p p o in te e w h o se rve d o n th e b o a rd fo r a lm o st e ig h t ye a rs in clu d in g a s ch a irm a n , a rg u e d th a t
th e N L R B co u n se l o ffe re d "n o b a sis" fo r th e ce n tra l cla im th a t B o e in g re ta lia te d b y tra n sfe rrin g w o rk fro m W a sh in g to n to S o u th
C a ro lin a
"T h e w o rke rs d o n 't h a ve a n y cla im to th e w o rk," h e sa id "If th e w o rke rs d o n 't h a ve a n y cla im to th e w o rk, it w a sn 't re ta lia to ry to
It is sim p ly e xp a n d in g its b u sin e ss o p e ra tio n "
o p e n a n e w se co n d p ro d u ctio n lin e
B o e in g o ffe re d a sim ila r d e fe n se , sa yin g th e jo b s in S o u th C a ro lin a w ill n o t co m e a t th e e xp e n se o f jo b s in W a sh in g to n sta te T h e
n e w p ro d u ctio n lin e is e xp e cte d to p u m p o u t th re e p la n e s a m o n th , o n to p o f th e se ve n p la n e s a m o n th co m in g o u t o f th e P u g e t
S o u n d a re a B o e in g sa id sin ce th e e xp a n sio n d e cisio n w a s m a d e , u n io n e m p lo ym e n t in P u g e t S o u n d h a s in cre a se d b y a b o u t 2 ,0 0 0
w o rke rs P lu s B o e in g n o te d th a t th e S o u th C a ro lin a faC tory is a lm o st d o n e a n d h a s in vo lve d m o re th a n 1 ,0 0 0 w o rke rs in th e
p ro ce ss
"T h is cla im is le g a lly frivo lo u s a n d re p re se n ts a ra d ica l d e p a rtu re fro m b o th N L R B a n d S u p re m e C o u rt p re ce d e n t," B o e in g G e n e ra l
C o u n se l J M ich a e l L u ttig sa id in a sta te m e n t
S o u th C a ro lin a R e p u b lica n la w m a ke rs w e re sim ila rly o u tra g e d o ve r th e co m p la in t S e n Jim D e M in t ca lle d it a "p o litica l fa vo r" fo r
th e u n io n s w h o su p p o rte d P re sid e n t O b a m a 's 2 0 0 8 ca m p a ig n
S e n L in d se y G ra h a m vo w e d to try to cu t o ff fu n d in g fo r th e "w ild g o o se ch a se "
"If su cce ssfu l, th e N L R B co m p la in t w o u ld a llo w u n io n s to h o ld a virtu a l 've to ' o ve r b u sin e ss d e cisio n s," h e sa id in a sta te m e n t
F o xN e w s co rn is se e kin g co m m e n t fro m W a sh in g to n sta te 's tw o D e m o cra tic U S se n a to rs
B u t N L R B sp o ke sw o m a n N a n cy C le e la n d sa id th e ch a rg e th a t B o e in g is tra n sfe rrin g w o rk a w a y fro m u n io n e m p lo ye e s ste m s fro m
th e co m p a n y's o rig in a l co m m itm e n t "to th e sta te o f W a sh in g to n th a t it w o u ld b u ild th e D re a m lin e r a irp la n e s in th a t sta te " P lu s sh e
sa id th e S o u th C a ro lin a fa cility w o u ld a ssu m e w o rk th a t is cu rre n tly b e in g d o n e a t a S e a ttle fa cility "A s fa r a s th e m e rits o f th e
co m p la in t g o , h o w e ve r, th e d istin ctio n d o e s n o t m a tte r W h e th e r th is w o rk is co n sid e re d n e w o r e xistin g , th e d e cisio n a b o u t w h e re
to lo ca te it w o u ld vio la te fe d e ra l la b o r la w if d o n e fo r d iscrim in a to ry re a so n s," sh e sa id in a n e m a il to F o xN e w s co rn
N L R B G e n e ra l C o u n se l L a fe S o lo m o n cite d B o e in g e xe cu tive s' co m m e n ts o n th e ir d e sire to a vo id strike s in cla im in g th e co m p a n y
vio la te d fe d e ra l ru le s
http://w w w .foxnew s.com /politics/2011/04/26/ex-labor-board-chairm an-union-backed-case..

. 4/27/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008225
% Ex-Labor B oard C hairm an:U nion-B acked C ase A gainstB oeing 'U nprecedented'- FoxN e...Page 2 of 2
"A w orker's right to strike is a fundam entalright guaranteed by the N ationalLabor R elations A ct," S olom on said in a statem ent "W e
also recognize the rights of em ployers to m ake business decisions based on their econom ic interests, but they m ust do so w ithin
the law "
S olom on noted that a settlem ent could stillbe reached P lus the N LR B stressed that the com plaint doesn't request that B oeing shut
dow n the S outh C arolina plant, how ever, it seeks to keep 787 production in W ashington
T he InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers, w hich initially filed the allegation against B oeing w ith the
N LR B in M arch of last year, said in a statem ent that the S outh C arolina decision w as aim ed at the union
"B oeing's decision to build a 787 assem bly line in S outh C arolina sent a m essage that B oeing w orkers w ould suffer financialharm
for exercising their collective bargaining rights," V ice P resident R ich M ichalskisaid "F ederallabor law is clear it's illegalto threaten
or penalize w orkers w ho engage in concerted activity, and it's illegalin all50 states"
A hearing in the case is now scheduled before an adm inistrative law Judge on June 14 in S eattle
T hat decision could then be voted on by the N ationalLabor R elations B oard itself A nd that decision could in turn be appealed to a
federalcircuit court
S chaum ber said the dispute could drag on for a w hile, but suggested the current m akeup of the board does not favor B oeing
"T his board view s its role as to prom ote unionization, and w ith that in m ind, that w illbe their focus in deciding this case," he said
P rint
C lose
.......
U R L
h ttp //w w w fo xn e w s co m /p o litics/2 0 1 1 /0 4 /2 6 /e x-la b o r-b o a rd -ch a irm a n -u n io n -b a cke d -ca se

-boeing -unprecedented/
H om e U S 1 W orld P olitics H ealth 1 B usiness S ciT ech E ntertainm ent V ideo O pinion S ports Leisure
C areers 1 Internships - FN C U Fox A round the W orld R S S Feeds
A dvertise litth U s T erm s of U se'P nvacy P olicy C ontact U s E m ailN ew sroom T opics
T his m aterial m ay nol be published broadcast, rew ritten, or redistnbuled O D 2011 F O X N ew s N etw ork L L C A ll lights reserved A ll m arket data delayed 20 m inutes
http://w w w .foxnew s.com /politics/2011/04/26/ex-labor-board-chairm an-union-backed

-case...4/27/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008226
..
B usiness & T echnology I B oeing stillstruggling w ith 787 I Seattle T im es N ew spaper
aeSeatitealm es
ght
W inner of E iz,
P ulitzer P rizes
O riginally published A pril 25, 2011 at 9:47 PM I P age m odified A pril 26, 2011 at 8:33 A M
Page 1 of 4
B oein g still stru gglin g w ith 787
W hile B oeing m ay m eet its deadline to deliver the first 787 to A llN ippon A irw ays of Japan before Sept.
30,the production pace projected for 2011 appears out of reach.
B y D om inic G ates
Seattle T im es aerospace reporter
A s B oeing's 787 D ream liner program creeps
tow ard first delivery this year,m anagers are
intensifying efforts to sm ooth production.B ut
people w orking on the airplanes and others
fam iliar w ith the state of the program say
progress is painfully slow .
W hile B oeing m ay m eet its deadline to deliver
the first 787 to A llN ippon A irw ays of Japan
before Sept.30,the production pace
projected for 2011 appears out ofreach.
B oeing executives told W allStreet analysts in
January the com pany w ould deliver
som ew here betw een a dozen and 2 0
D ream liners this year.
T op com m en ts
H ide / Show com m ents
a C an't put this on the unions...(A pril 2 6 , 2 0 1 1 , by
fujigm ) Read m ore
tt,build the interiors w hile the planes are here in
E verett rather than fly aw ay and... (A pril 2 6 , 2 0 1 1 ,
by takn63) Read m ore
a I am no insider but I have to w onder w hy the
board has not fired top brass for such...(A pril26,
2011, by From the M iddle) Read m ore
R ead all 2 1 com m ents >
P ost a com m ent >
"It isn't going to happen," said one m echanic w orking on the airplanes."T here are too m any jobs
to be done."
O ne job taking w eeks per airplane is the painstaking rem oval of sealantfrom the interior of fuel
4/26/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008227
B usiness & T echnology I B oeing still struggling w ith 787 I Seattle T im es N ew spaper
Page 2 of 4
tanks in the w ings,then resealing them .
A nd because the com puterized system that provides m echanics w ith data on parts isn't operating
w ell,even sim pler m odifications take m uch longer than they should.
'
B oeing has leased extra space so it can w ork on m ultiple airplanes at the sam e tim e.
M anagers last w eek held all-hands m eetings aim ed at galvanizing the w ork force,and form ed
em ployee com m ittees to identify and solve the m ajor holdups.
T ough questions ahead
O n W ednesday,w hen B oeing releases its quarterly earnings results,executives no doubt w ill be
questioned about the state of the 787 program .
Six D ream liners are flying flight tests,w hile 29 m ore have rolled off the assem bly line and are
parked on the E verett flightline or atadjacentPaine Field.
T hose planes aw ait thousands of incom plete assem bly jobs and m odifications necessary because
of design changes since they w ere built.
B oeing spokesw om an L oriG unter conceded M onday that the rew ork is a difficultchallenge,and
she acknow ledged the tw o specific problem s raised by 787 insiders: the w ing sealing and the
com puter data glitches.
Still,she insisted,there is a "very specific airplane by airplane plan" for com pleting the rew ork.
"N othing w e've seen ...is raising red flags for us," she said.
In an effort to com e to grips w ith the extensive rew ork,B oeing is m odifying one D ream liner in
T exas,tw o m ore inside the m ain E verett assem bly plant,and five airplanes inside a large hangar
at the south end of Paine Field leased from m aintenance and repair com pany A viation T echnical
Services (A TS).
P lenty of headaches
Y et,those close to the program say production headaches continue.
"T he assem bly process is stilla m ess," an engineer said.
"T hey are building airplanes in the final-assem bly process that then have to be rebuilt in the
pickup process,w hich is m any tim es longer."
Parts that don't fit,including doors and control surfaces on the w ings,still are arriving in E verett.
"T he w ings on the 787s aren'teven close to being ready," the engineer said.
T he em ployees spoke on condition of anonym ity because B oeing doesn't allow them to talk about
their w ork.
T he latest airplanes rolled out to the flight line from the factory w ith about 1,600 jobs incom plete.
It has been taking on average about a m onth to com plete 1,0o0 of these catch-up jobs,the 787
4/26/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008228
B usiness & T echnology I B oeing still struggling w ith 787 I Seattle T im es N ew spaper
Page 3 of 4
m echanic said.
"T hey are just digging the hole deeper every tim e they send one out w ith that m any jobs on it," he
said.
G unter said she didn't have the inform ation to com m ent on those num bers.
Sorting it all out is m ade m uch m ore difficult because of the balky com puterized system that
m anages all the data about specific parts.M echanics are spending hours trying to call up parts
inform ation and draw ings before perform ing any rew ork or m odification.
A nd individual jets have been rew orked so often that engineers have a hard tim e just figuring out
w hat is the particular configuration of parts and assem blies on a particular plane.
"Productivity has crashed," said another em ployee w ith know ledge of how the com puter system is
failing.
"A w orker spends four hours a day on the com puter just trying to pull up his w ork."
B oeing's G unter said the com pany is w orking to im prove the digital tools,w hich she adm itted
"could w ork better."
B ut she said that,even w ithout that,productivity has been im proving."O ur m echanics are doing a
greatjob," she said.
A m ong the m ajor rew ork that m ust be done on every jet built so far is the laborious resealing of
the w ings.
T hat's currently being done on tw o jets destined for R oyal A ir M aroc of M orocco,inside an em pty
bay of the m ain assem bly plant.
A s the engineer put it,the planes are "essentially getting gutted.".
T he w ing seals are im portant not only to avoid fuel leaks but also to coat m etal fasteners so as to
prevent sparks inside the fuel tank during a lightning strike.
not entirely
G unter said M itsubishi H eavy Industries (M H I), w hich builds the w ings in Japan, is
atfault.
"T he sealing thatw as done did not m eet our expectations," G unter said."W e w orked together
w ith M H I to identify the need for resealing."
A t the root of the issue,she said,are "elem ents of both w orkm anship and design."
N othing new
She added that this is "nota new discovery" and already w as factored into the last schedule
revision in D ecem ber,w hich requires the first delivery by the end of Septem ber.
B ut first delivery m ay not m atter as m uch as the sm oothing of the production system ,said the
em ployee w ho spoke about the com puterized data problem s.
"T hey'll m ake som e deliveries," that person said,"B ut does the assem bly line w ork? A lm ost no
4/26/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008229
B usiness & T echnology I B oeing stillstruggling w ith 787 I Seattle T im es N ew spaper
one thinks so."
Page 4 of 4
A m ong severalpeople w ho w ork on or w ith the program ,the m ost optim istic projection w as that
B oeing m ightdeliver 10 D ream liners to custom ers by year end.
O thers predicted the num ber w ould be m uch sm aller.
Inside the A T S hangar,D ream liners N os.8 and 9 are being prepared to join the fleet of flight-test
planes to speed up the certification process.
These jets w illfly long flights to try to gain a certitication know n as ETO PS Extended-range
T w in-engine O perations w hich an airplane needs to fly m ore than an hour from the nearest
airport.
O ne D ream liner,N o.23,flew to San A ntonio last m onth.
T hatplane is having its w ing tanks sealed there and also is being rew ired.W hen it's done,itw ill
fly back to Everettto have an interior installed.
M ore em ployees
B oeing has been hiring m echanics steadily to beef up its w ork force and by the sum m er plans to
have 1 ,2 0 0 people w orking atthe A TS hangar,w hich the w ork force has dubbed "Factory South."
"B oeing is throw ing m oney and bodies atthe problem ," the m echanic said.
D om inic G ates: 206-464-2963
or dgates@ seattletim es.com
4/26/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008230
'D aily Labor R eport
P age 1 of 4
./...0 D a ily L a b o r R e p o rt
'\._ ,1
S o u rce : D a ily L a b o r R e p o rt: N e w s A rch ive > 2 0 1 1 > M a y > 0 5 /1 2 /2 0 1 1 > N e w s > N L R B : S e n a te P a n e l M e e ts
to D iscu ss M id d le C la ss B u t M o stly F o cu se s o n N L R B , B o e in g D isp u te
NLR B
9 2 D L R A -2
S e n a te P a n e l M e e ts to D is c u s s M id d le C la s s
B u t M o s tly F o c u s e s o n N L R B , B o e in g D is p u te
T h e S e n a te H e a lth , E d u ca tio n , L a b o r a n d P e n sio n s C o m m itte e se t a M a y 1 2 h e a rin g to co n sid e r th e
fu tu re o f th e U .S . m id d le cla ss, b u t m o st o f th e se ssio n w a s ta ke n u p w ith q u e stio n s a n d d e b a te o ve r
a N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd p ro ce e d in g in vo lvin g A m e rica 's la rg e st e xp o rte r, B o e in g C o .
F o rm e r la b o r se cre ta ry R o b e rt B . R e ich a n d H e a th e r B o u sh e y, se n io r e co n o m ist w ith th e C e n te r fo r
A m e rica n P ro g re ss, a d d re sse d w id e n in g in co m e g a p s a n d e co n o m ic stre sse s o n m id d le cla ss fa m ilie s,
b u t se n a to rs a ske d m o re q u e stio n s o f]. M ich a e l L u ttig , B o e in g 's g e n e ra l co u n se l, w h o w a s in vite d to
a p p e a r b y R a n kin g M e m b e r M ich a e l B . E n zi (R -W yo .) a n d d iscu sse d th e N L R B a ctin g g e n e ra l co u n se l's
A p ril 2 0 co m p la in t a lle g in g th a t th e co m p a n y ille g a lly tra n sfe rre d je tlin e r p ro d u ctio n fro m W a sh in g to n
sta te to S o u th C a ro lin a in re ta lia tio n fo r P u g e t S o u n d a re a e m p lo ye e s h a vin g su p p o rte d p a st strike s b y
th e In te rn a tio n a l A sso cia tio n o f M a ch in ists (7 7 D L R A A -1 , 4 /2 1 /1 1 ).
L u ttig ca lle d th e u n fa ir la b o r p ra ctice co m p la in t "p re p o ste ro u s o n its fa ce " a n d E n zi b la ste d it a s "n o t
th e w a y to e n co u ra g e n e w jo b cre a tio n in th e U .S ." b u t S e n . R ich a rd B lu m e n th a l (D -C o n n .) q u e stio n e d
th e a p p ro p ria te n e ss o f "vig o ro u s a n d e ve n vicio u s a tta cks o n th e N L R B ," w h ile S e n . T o m H a rkin (D -
Io w a ), ch a irm a n o f th e co m m itte e , sa id th e B o e in g ca se h a s b e co m e a "p o litica l th in g " a n d w a rn e d
th a t "w h a t b o rd e rs o n th e u n e th ica l is fo r p e o p le in th e p o litica l b ra n ch th e C o n g re ss to b e g in to
in te rfe re in a ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s a n d to try to m a k e it a p o litic a l m a tte r."
F o rm e r N L R B M e m b e r S a ra h M . F o x, n o w le g a l co u n se l fo r th e A F L -C IO , to ld th e co m m itte e th a t th e
N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s A ct w a s in te n d e d n o t o n ly to p ro te ct w o rke rs b u t to b e "p a rt o f a p o sitive
n a tio n a l e co n o m ic stra te g y," a n d a rg u e d th a t th e o n ly th in g e xtra o rd in a ry a b o u t th e co m p la in t a g a in st
B o e in g is th e size o f th e co m p a n y a n d th e m a g n itu d e o f th e b u sin e ss d e cisio n th a t is in d isp u te .
C o m m itte e L e a d e rs O ffe r D iffe rin g V ie w s
H a rkin o p e n e d th e h e a rin g n o tin g th a t h is sta te e xp e rie n ce d m o re th a n 2 0 0 p la n t clo sin g s in 2 0 1 0 ,
w ith a lo ss o f n e a rly 1 2 ,0 0 0 jo b s, a n d sa id C o n g re ss m u st m a ke "sm a rte r p o licy ch o ice s to re sto re th e
fu n d a m e n ta l p ro m ise o f th e A m e rica n D re a m ."
O n e o f th o se "sm a rte r p o licy ch o ice s," H a rkin sa id , w o u ld b e to "re sto re th e vo ice o f w o rkin g
A m e rica n s b y stre n g th e n in g w o rke rs'rig h ts, a n d d e fe n d in g th e a g e n cy th a t p ro te cts th o se rig h ts th e
N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd ."
H a rkin sa id N L R B ca re e r e m p lo ye e s h a ve co m e u n d e r "vicio u s a n d u n fa ir p o litica l a tta ck fo r ca rryin g
o u t th e ir d u tie s u n d e r th e la w " in w h a t h e a lle g e d w a s "p a rt o f a la rg e r p o litica l ca m p a ig n th a t w e a re
se e in g a cro ss th e co u n try to u n fa irly sca p e g o a t w o rke rs a n d th e ir u n io n s fo r o u r n a tio n 's p ro b le m s."
B u t E n zi sa id th e a ctin g g e n e ra l co u n se l issu e d a co m p la in t a g a in st B o e in g th a t le ft e m p lo ye rs a cro ss
th e co u n try "g re a tly d istu rb e d th a t a b u re a u cra t se rvin g in a n a ctin g ca p a city co u ld d ire ct U .S .
co m p a n ie s a b o u t w h e re to lo ca te fa cilitie s."
A m o n g h is co n ce rn s, E n zi sa id , is w h e th e r N L R B is ta rg e tin g th e 2 2 sta te s w h ich h a ve rig h t-to -w o rk
la w s like S o u th C a ro lin a 's. T h o se sta te s, E n zi sa id , h a ve b e e n "a n e n g in e o f n e w jo b cre a tio n " a n d
h a ve a ttra cte d fo re ig n e m p lo ye rs to th e U n ite d S ta te s. E n zi sa id h e a n d h is co lle a g u e s w ill fig h t to
o p p o se th e cre a tio n o f a n y d e te rre n t to in ve stm e n t in rig h t-to -w o rk sta te s, a n d h e ch a rg e d th a t th e
N L R B co m p la in t a g a in st B o e in g sh o w s "th is a d m in istra tio n h a s ye t to g e t th e m e ssa g e ."
R e ic h , B o u s h e y S tre s s N e e d fo r V ia b le M id d le C la s s
http://new s.bna.com /dlln/display/batch_print_display.adp
5/13/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008231
ID aily L abor R eport
Page 2 of 4
R e ich , n o w a p ro fe sso r o f p u b lic p o licy a t th e U n ive rsity o f C a lifo rn ia a t B e rke le y, to ld th e p a n e l th a t
th e U .S . e co n o m y is in a "lo p sid e d re co ve ry," w ith sto ck p rice s a n d e xe cu tive co m p e n sa tio n o n th e
rise , b u t th e a ve ra g e w o rke r "n o t g e ttin g m u ch " o u t o f th e re co ve ry.
W o rke rs h a ve a d o p te d "co p in g m e ch a n ism s" to d e a l w ith e co n o m ic a d ve rsity in th e p a st, su ch a s
h a vin g tw o sp o u se s w o rkin g , R e ich o b se rve d , b u t "th e re 's a lim it o n h o w m a n y w o m e n w ith yo u n g
ch ild re n ca n g o to w o rk" a n d h e co m m e n te d th a t se rvice jo b s re ce n tly cre a te d in re sta u ra n ts and
o th e r b u sin e sse s "d o n o t p a y ve ry m u ch ."
R e ich sa id A m e rica n s w e n t in to d e b t a n d u se d th e ir h o m e s a s so u rce s o f w e a lth u n til a h o u sin g b u b b le
b u rst, d e p rivin g th e m o f th e ir "la st co p in g m e ch a n ism ." N o w , h e sa id , th e re is "n o t e n o u g h m o n e y in
th e m id d le cla ss to ke e p th e co u n try ru n n in g ," w h ile th e w e a lth ie st A m e rica n s h a ve b e co m e e ve n
richer.
R e ich sa id h e h e a rs a co m m o n re fra in th a t th e U n ite d S ta te s ca n n o t ra ise ta xe s o n th o se w ith th e
h ig h e st in co m e s o r g re a te st w e a lth , b u t a d d e d , "I fra n kly d o n 't kn o w w h a t th e y're ta lkin g a b o u t!"
B o u sh e y to ld th e p a n e l th a t "su p p ly-sid e rs" b e lie ve th e ke y to e co n o m ic g ro w th is fo r g o ve rn m e n t to
re d u ce ta xe s a n d lim it re g u la tio n in o rd e r to sp u r in ve stm e n t, b u t sm a ll b u sin e sse s re p o rt th a t th e ir
sin g le la rg e st co n ce rn is p o o r sa le s re ve n u e .
S ta tin g th a t "lo w e rin g w a g e s a n d a h o llo w e d o u t m id d le cla ss m e a n s th a t co n su m e rs ca n d e m a n d le ss
a n d le ss e a ch ye a r," B o u sh e y sa id "w h e n e ve ry e m p lo ye r fo cu se s so le ly o n re d u cin g w a g e s a t th e
e xp e n se o f a ll e lse , th is h a s d e va sta tin g co n se q u e n ce s fo r th e e co n o m y o ve ra ll."
T h e e co n o m ist sa id "w ith o u t fe a r o f re ta lia tio n , co lle ctive b a rg a in in g h e lp e d u s g ro w ."
B o e in g L a w y e r C h a lle n g e s N L R B C o m p la in t
L u ttig , w h o se rve d a s a ju d g e o n th e U .S . C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e F o u rth C ircu it b e fo re re sig n in g to
jo in B o e in g , to ld th e p a n e l th a t th e N L R B co m p la in t is "e n o rm o u sly co n se q u e n tia l" fo r th e co m p a n y,
w h ich a lre a d y h a s re ce ive d a b o u t 8 5 0 o rd e rs fo r its lo n g -a w a ite d 7 8 7 D re a m lin e r a irp la n e .
M o st D re a m H in e r p ro d u ctio n w ill ta ke p la ce in th e P u g e t S o u n d a re a o f W a sh in g to n sta te w h e re JA M
re p re se n ts B o e in g e m p lo ye e s, b u t L u ttig sa id th e d e m a n d fo r th e D re a m lin e r re q u ire d th e co m p a n y to
b u ild a se co n d a sse m b ly lin e . B o e in g co n sid e re d W a sh in g to n , S o u th C a ro lin a , a n d o th e r lo ca tio n s a n d
m a d e a "co n sid e re d b u sin e ss ju d g m e n t" b a se d o n a "h o st o f co n sid e ra tio n s" th a t fa vo re d S o u th
C a ro lin a , h e sa id .
S ta tin g th a t th e co m p a n y h a s in ve ste d $ 1 b illio n in a sta te -o f-th e -a rt fa cility in N o rth C h a rle sto n , S .C .,
L u ttig a rg u e d th a t a lle g in g th e co m p a n y m a d e its d e cisio n in re ta lia tio n fo r th e e a rlie r strike a ctivity b y
W a sh in g to n w o rke rs w a s in su p p o rta b le . N o co m p a n y sp e n d s a su m like B o e in g 's in ve stm e n t "o u t o f
sp ite ," th e la w ye r sa id .
C a llin g th e u n fa ir la b o r p ra ctice co m p la in t "a b re a th ta kin g su b stitu tio n o f th e b o a rd fo r th e
m a n a g e m e n t o f a n A m e rica n co m p a n y," L u ttig a rg u e d th a t co n ce rn a b o u t th e N L R B a ctio n m ig h t
m a ke co m p a n ie s re lu cta n t to e xp a n d in to a rig h t to w o rk sta te like S o u th C a ro lin a . H e sa id co m p a n ie s
a lso m ig h t h e sita te b e fo re b u ild in g fa cilitie s a n d e m p lo yin g w o rke rs in a sta te th a t d o e s n o t h a ve a
rig h t to w o rk la w , fe a rin g th a t a la te r a tte m p t to m o ve to a rig h t to w o rk sta te m ig h t b e ch a lle n g e d a s
ille g a l u n d e r th e N L R A .
C a llin g th e N L R B co m p la in t "le g a lly u n fo u n d e d a n d irre sp o n sib le ," L u ttig sa id it sh o u ld b e "o f co n ce rn
to a ll."
F o rm e r N L R B M e m b e r S a y s C a s e N o t E x tra o rd in a ry
B u t F o x sa id N L R B ca g e s a lle g in g u n la w fu l tra n sfe rs o f w o rk b y e m p lo ye rs w e re n o t e xtra o rd in a ry, a n d
sh e sa id th a t th e N L R B co m p la in t a lle g e s th a t B o e in g e n g a g e d in ju st su ch a "tra n sfe r" o f w o rk to
S o u th C a ro lin a b e ca u se th e firm 's W a sh in g to n e m p lo ye e s h a d e xe rcise d th e ir rig h t u n d e r th e N L R A to
e n g a g e in strike s.
S ta tin g th a t N L R B is re sp o n sib le fo r p ro te ctio n o f e m p lo ye e rig h ts in clu d in g th e rig h t to strike , F o x sa id
th e re w a s "n o th in g e xtra o rd in a ry a b o u t th is co m p la in t."
A m e rica n s h a ve a rig h t to e xp e ct th a t sta tu to ry rig h ts w ill b e e n fo rce d , F o x sa id , a d d in g th a t re ce n t
"a tta cks" o n th e a g e n cy h a ve b e e n "d istu rb in g ."
5/13/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008232
'D aily L abor R eport
Page 3 of 4
R e ic h O p p o s e s 'R e le n tle s s A tta c k s ' o n L a b o r
S e n . Jo h n n y Isa kso n (R -G a .) to ld R e ich th a t h e a ssu m e d th e e co n o m ist su p p o rte d w h a t N L R B w a s
tryin g to d o , b u t R e ich sa id h e w o u ld n o t p re ju d g e th e ca se a n d ca lle d it a "d istra ctio n " fro m th e
S e n a te co m m itte e 's w o rk o f co n sid e rin g th e issu e th a t w a s th e p u rp o se fo r th e h e a rin g .

N o tin g th a t th e ca se h a d n o t e ve n b e g u n a p ro ce ss th a t w o u ld in clu d e a n a d m in istra tive la w ju d g e
h e a rin g , b o a rd re vie w , a n d p o ssib le co n sid e ra tio n b y th e co u rts, R e ich sa id it w a s in a p p ro p ria te to
p re ju d g e th e o u tco m e o f th e ca se .
A ske d b y Isa kso n w h e th e r h e kn e w o f a n y tim e w h e n N L R B h a d "m a d e a d e cisio n to re tro a ctive ly
in va lid a te a ca p ita l in ve stm e n t o f $ 1 b illio n ," R e ich sa id th e re h a d b e e n n o N L R B d e cisio n a n d h e w a s
n o t a n "N L R B h isto ria n ." H o w e ve r, R e ich re sp o n d e d th a t "a s a h isto ry b u ff w ith re g a rd to la b o r, I a m
shocked and d e e p ly u p se t b y th e re le n tle ss a tta ck o n o rg a n ize d la b o r, o n u n io n iza tio n , a n d th e rig h ts
o f e m p lo ye e s in th is co u n try to u n io n ize ."
N L R B P ro c e s s , E ffe c t o f C o m p la in t D e b a te d
B lu m e n th a l, in h is first te rm re p re se n tin g C o n n e cticu t, to ld L u ttig th a t h e is "tro u b le d b y th e a tta ck o n
th e N L R B p ro ce ss," w h ich h e o b se rve d is a t a "ve ry in cip ie n t sta te ," a n d a ske d th e B o e in g g e n e ra l
co u n se l fo r h is re a ctio n .
"I d o n 't se e a vicio u s a tta ck o n th e N L R B ," L u ttig sa id . "O n th e fa cts h e re ," h e sa id , th e a ctin g g e n e ra l
co u n se l h a s b ro u g h t "a p u b lic p o licy issu e o f so m e im p o rt."
B u t B lu m e n th a l sa id th e u n fa ir la b o r p ra ctice ca se in vo lve s sta te m e n ts a b o u t th e D re a m lin e r d e cisio n
a lle g e d ly m a d e b y B o e in g e xe cu tive s, a n d th e co n te xt in w h ich th o se re m a rks w e re m a d e a n d in w h ich
th e y sh o u ld b e in te rp re te d . C a llin g th a t "cla ssica lly th e kin d o f fa ctu a l d isp u te " th a t ca n n o t b e re so lve d
b e fo re litig a tio n e ve n b e g in s, B lu m e n th a l sa id N L R B 's ca se a g a in st B o e in g sh o u ld n o t b e p re ju d g e d .
B lu m e n th a l a lso a ske d L u ttig w h e th e r h e b e lie ve d th a t th e co m p a n y fa ce d "in e vita b le " d e fe a t in th e
u n fa ir la b o r p ra ctice ca se b e fo re N L R B , a n d th e B o e in g la w ye r re p lie d th a t "I p re su m p tive ly e xp e ct to
lo se ." H e sa id h e b a se d th a t o p in io n o n "in stitu tio n a l re a so n s" th a t th e g e n e ra l co u n se l a n d th e b o a rd
w ill sh a re th e sa m e vie w o f th e la w , b u t e xp re sse d co n fid e n ce th a t th e co m p a n y u ltim a te ly w o u ld
p re va il in a co u rt re vie w o f a b o a rd o rd e r.
S e n . L a m a r A le xa n d e r (R -T e n n .) a ske d L u ttig h o w lo n g it co u ld ta ke to o b ta in ju d icia l re vie w o f a n
a d ve rse N L R B ru lin g , a n d th e la w ye r sa id it co u ld ta ke a b o u t tw o ye a rs. A le xa n d e r a ske d w h e th e r
th e re a re B o e in g su p p lie rs in W a sh in g to n n o w co n sid e rin g w h e th e r to lo ca te o p e ra tio n s in o r n e a r
S o u th C a ro lin a in a n ticip a tio n o f th e co m p a n y's p la n to b u ild th re e D re a m lin e rs p e r m o n th th e re .
L u ttig a g re e d th a t su p p lie rs a re tryin g to m a ke p la n s a n d d e cisio n s, a n d a g re e d w ith A le xa n d e r th a t
w a itin g se ve ra l ye a rs fo r a re so lu tio n o f th e N L R B co m p la in t w ill le a ve n o t o n ly B o e in g b u t a lso o th e r
co m p a n ie s in d o u b t a b o u t th e ir rig h ts a n d b u sin e ss o p tio n s.
A le xa n d e r a ske d w h e th e r it w a s "u n e th ica l" fo r th e S e n a te co m m itte e to b e co n sid e rin g su ch a n issu e
a t a h e a rin g , a n d L u ttig a g re e d th a t it w a s n o t im p ro p e r.
H a rk in Q u e s tio n s S e n a te H e a rin g B o e in g D is p u te
B u t H a rkin e xp re sse d re g re t th a t so m u ch o f th e h e a rin g h a d b e e n d e vo te d to th e B o e in g d isp u te
ra th e r th a n b ro a d e r issu e s a b o u t th e e co n o m y a n d th e m id d le cla ss. H e a lso sa id h e d id n 't th in k a
S e n a te h e a rin g o n th e d isp u te w a s a p p ro p ria te .
T h e co m m itte e ch a irm a n n o te d th a t in P illsbury C o. v. F T C , 3 5 4 F .2 d 9 5 2 (5 th C ir. 1 9 6 8 ), a n
a d m in istra tive a g e n cy o rd e r a g a in st a co m p a n y w a s o ve rtu rn e d a fte r a fe d e ra l a p p e a ls co u rt
co n clu d e d th a t a S e n a te co m m itte e 's co n d u ctin g a h e a rin g o n th e d isp u te w h ile it w a s p e n d in g b e fo re
th e a g e n cy vio la te d d u e p ro ce ss rig h ts o f o n e o f th e p a rtie s.
H a rkin a lso n o te d th a t o n M a y 1 1 , Jim M cN e rn e y, B o e in g 's p re sid e n t a n d ch ie f e xe cu tive o ffice r, w ro te
a n o p -e d p ie ce in th e W all S tre e t Jo u rn al th a t ch a lle n g e d th e N L R B a ctio n , b u t th e e xe cu tive a lso
w ro te th a t "[t]h e N L R B 's o ve rre a ch co u ld a cce le ra te th e o ve rse a s flig h t o f g o o d , m id d le -cla ss
A m e rica n jo b s."
H a rkin sa id th e co m p a n y is a m a jo r su p p lie r to th e fe d e ra l g o ve rn m e n t, e a rn in g a b o u t $ 1 9 .5 b illio n
fro m g o ve rn m e n t sa le s, a n d H a rkin w o u ld h a ve p re fe rre d th a t M cN e rn e y in clu d e a ssu ra n ce s in h is o p -
5/13/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008233
Page 4 of 4
e d p ie ce th a t B o e in g d o e s n o t in te n d to m o ve jo b s o u t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s.
L u ttig sa id th e e xe cu tive "d id n o t m a ke a ve ile d th re a t a t a ll" b u t o n ly a g e n e ra l o b se rva tio n . L u ttig
o ffe re d h is o w n a ssu ra n ce s o n b e h a lf o f B o e in g th a t th e co m p a n y h a s n o p la n to e xp o rt jo b s fro m th e
U nited S tates.
B y Law rence E . D u b e
W ritte n te stim o n y su b m itte d b y R o b e rt B . R e ich m ay b e acce sse d at
h ttp ://o p .b n a.co m /d Ircase s.n sf/r? O p e n = ld u e -8 g sth 2 . T e stim o n y b y H e ath e r B o u sh e y m ay b e
acce sse d at h ttp ://o p .b n a.co m /d Ircase s.n sf/r? O p e n = ld u e -8 g stk4 . T e stim o n y b y J. M ich ae l
L u ttig m ay b e acce sse d at h ttp ://o p .b n a.co m /d Ircase s.n sf/r? O p e n = ld u e -8 g stl6
. T e stim o n y b y
S arah F o x m ay b e acce sse d at h ttp ://o p .b n a.co m /d Ircase s.n sf/r? O p e n = ld u e -8 g stjf
C o n ta ct u s a t h ttp ://w w w .b n a .co m /co n ta ct/in d e x.h tm l o r ca ll 1 -8 0 0 -3 7 2 -1 0 3 3
IS S N 1 5 2 2 -5 9 6 8
C o p yrig h t 2 0 1 1 , T h e B u re a u o f N a tio n a l A ffa irs, In c.. R e p ro d u ctio n o r re d istrib u tio n , in w h o le o r in p a rt,
a n d in a n y fo rm , w ith o u t e xp re ss w ritte n p e rm issio n , is p ro h ib ite d e xce p t a s p e rm itte d b y th e B N A C o p yrig h t
P o licy. h ttp ://w w w .b n a .co m /co rp /in d e x.h trn I# V
5/13/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008234
figrkin R esponds to G O P A ttacks on N onpartisan N ationalL abor R elations B oard
Page 1 of 2
F ro m : A h earn , R ich ard L .
S en t: T u esd ay, M ay 10,2011 3:30 P M
To:
K eam ey, B arry J M attina,C eleste J.
S ubject: FW : H arkin R esponds to G O P A ttacks on N onpartisan N ationalLabor R elations B oard
From : H arkin Press O ffice [m ailto:tom _harkin@ harkin.enew s.senate.gov]
Sent: Tuesday,M ay 10,2011 2:23 P M
To: C leeland,N ancy
Subject: H arkin R esponds to G O P A ttacks on N onpartisan N ationalLabor R elations B oard
A dd us to your A ddress B ook! A dd tom _harkin@ harkin.enew s.senate.gov to yo u r address book now to ensure your
new sletter alw ays get delivered.
M ay 10,2011
HEO EN A TE'
U n s u b s c rib e
E A L T 14, 'tD U C A T IO N ,L A 0q A A ID ,
S e n a to r T o m H a rk in (1 :1 -IA ), C h a irm a n
F O R IM M E D IA T E R E L E A SE
M ay 10,2011
U p d a te M y P ro file
OM M
h ttp ://h e lp .s e n a te .g o v
C ontact: Justine S essions / K ate C yrul
(202) 224-3254
H arkin R esponds to G O P A ttacks on N onpartisan N ationalL abor R elations B oard
W A SH IN G T O N Senate H ealth,E ducation,L abor and Pensions (H E L P) C om m ittee C hairm an T om H arkin (D -IA ) today
released the follow ing statem ent responding to the com m ents m ade by R epublican politicians at a press conference today
on the N ational L abor R elations B oard investigation of the B oeing C om pany. O n T hursday, H arkin w ill convene a H E L P
C om m ittee hearing to discuss w hy the m iddle class is increasingly slipping out of reach for A m ericans, at w hich the
G eneral C ounsel for B oeing w ill testify.
"W hat w e are really w itnessing here is another exam ple of the R epublican assault on the m iddle class that has been
echoing across the country for m onths now . Instead of focusing on how w e can get A m ericans w orking again and get the
m iddle class back on its feet, R epublicans have chosen to spend their tim e attacking the handling of a routine unfair labor
practice charge. T his overly dram atic response and the disturbing m isinform ation they are peddling has needlessly
com plicated the legal process and distorted the public discussion of this case.
"T hese opponents of w orkers'rights have also m ischaracterized the fundam ental issue at stake, suggesting that this case
represents an assault on 'right to w ork'law s. T hat's just factually incorrect there is absolutely no w ay that the outcom e
of this case could affect in any w ay the law s of any state.
"T his fight is about far m ore than just one group of w orkers in W ashington State. U nions are one of the few voices left in
our society speaking up for the little guy, and if w e let pow erful C E O s tram ple all over these rights w ithout consequences,
w e m ight as w ell give up on having a m iddle class altogether.
"T hat's w hat this all com es dow n to: pow erful corporate interests are pressuring public officials to interfere w ith an
independent agency, rather than let justice run its course. A nd w e 'should not tolerate this interference. Instead, w e should
turn our attention back to the issues that really m atter to A m erican fam ilies how w e can create jobs in W ashington,South
C arolina, Iow a, and across the country"
5/10/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008235
'
H arkin R esponds to G O P A ttacks on N onpartisan N ationalL abor R elations B oard
Page 2 of 2
###
H E L P C o m m itte e W e b s ite 1 N e w s 1 H e a rin g s 1 A b o u t C h a irm a n H a rk in
U p d a te M y P ro file - U n s u b s c rib e - P riv a c y P o lic y
5/10/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008236
.U S-Senate C om m ittee on H ealth,E ducation,L abor,& Pensions: N ew sroom - Press R elea...Page 1 of 2
U S S en ate C o m m ittee o n H ealth , E d u catio n , L ab o r, & P en sio n s
H om e
N ew sroom
P ress R eleases
G alleries
atpz_ma_
Issu es
H ealth
E ducation
L abor
P ensions
nom inations
L egislation
A bout
C hairm an's P age
R anking M em ber's P age
Subcom m ittees
Internships
A ccessibility
C ontact
H E L P C o m m ittee to E xam in e W h y th e M id d le C lass is S h rin kin g
Senate C om m ittee on
H ealth,E ducation, L abor &
P ensions
D em o crats b y
R an k
T om H arlan (IA)
B arbara A M ikulski (M D )
Jeff B ingam an (N M )
Patty M urray_(W A )
B ernard Sanders (D ly_Ti
R obert P C asey, Jr (P A )
K ay R H agan (N C )
Jeff M erkley_(O R )
A lFranken (M N )
M ichael F B ennet (C O )
Sheldon W hitehouse (R I)
R ichard B lum enthal (C I)
R ep u b lican s b y
R an k
M ichaelB E nzi (W Y )
H a rk in : A m erica can 't h ave a vib ran t ec o n o m y w ith o u t a vib ran t m id d le cla ss
L am ar A lexander (T A
Tuesday, M ay 10, 2011
R ichard B urr (N C )
Johnny lsakson (G A )
W A SH IN G T O N T hursday at 9:15 A .M .,Senator T om H arkin (D -IA ),C hairm an of the Senate H ealth,E ducation,L abor and P ensions
R and P aul (K Y )
O rrin G H atch (U T )
C om m ittee, w ill convene the first in a series of events to exam ine w hy the m iddle class is increasingly slipping out of reach for A m ericans A s
John M cC ain (A Z)
corporate profits reach record levels,and the gulf betw een w orkers' w ages and their bosses' salaries is larger than ever before,the C om m ittee
P at R oberts (K S)
w ill discuss the policy decisions that have played a role in the erosion of the m iddle class and w hat can be done to turn things around before
it'sL isa M urkow ski (A K )
M ark K irk (IL)
too late
"T oday, the 'A m encan D ream ' is under attack It used to be that if you put in a hard day's w ork,you could cans good A m encan w ages,good
A m erican benefits,and give your kids a better life than you had," said H arkin "A m encans are w orking hard for less over the past 30 years,
real w ages have rem ained stagnant or even declined for all except the richest A m encans,w hile w orker productivity increased by 80 percent.
T oo m any people dism iss this disturbing trend as a sym ptom of the recession,rather than recognizing that this dram atic change in our econom y
is the result of decades of deliberate policy choices
"It's tune for W ashington to recognize that there can be no sustainable econom ic recovery if w e don't rebuild our m iddle class W e need to
m ake the econom y w ork for A m encan fam ilies again,and I hope this heanng can help bring focus to that discussion "
T he hearing w ill be w ebcast live at http //help senate gov.
F ollow ing the hearing,testim ony and archived videos w ill be posted at
http //help senate govilleanngs/
H E A R IN G
T h e E n d an gered M id d le C lass: lath e A m erican D ream S lip p in g O u t of R each for A m erican F am ilies?
W IT N E S S E S :
R ob ert B . R eich , F orm er U S S ecretary of Labor and currentivC hancellor's P rofessor of P ublic P olicy, G oldm an S chool of P ublic P olicy,
U niversity of C alifornia B erkeley
H eath er B ou sh ey, S enior E conom ist, C enter for A m erican P rogress
M ich ael L u ttig, G eneralC ounseland E xecutive V ice P resident, B oeing C om pany
S arah F ox, LegalC ounsel, A F L-C IO
D A T E T hursday, M ay 12, 2011
T IM E - 9 15 A M
http://help.senate.govinew sroom /press/release/?id=dfO lde0a-41ba-4499-82e9-118888dD 37..

. 5/10/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008237
'U S Senate C om m ittee on H ealth,E ducation,L abor,& Pensions: N ew sroom - Press R elea...Page 2 of 2
P L A C E '430 D irksen S en ate O ffice B u ild in g
444
M ore P ress from the C hairm an
R ecen t N ew s
H E L P C om m ittee to E xam ine W hy the M iddle C lass is Shnnkino [C hairm an'
H arkin -A m encans w ith D isabilities L eaving L abor F orce at A larm ing R ate [C hairm an]
H arlan.D eL auro R espond to P roposed M enu L abeling R ules [C hairm an]
H arkin C alls on D rug M anufacturer to L ow er P nce of M akena [C hairm an]
H arlan 'T he choice is to go forw ard,or be dragged backw ard [C hairm an]
!Search this site...
Search
C om m ittee on H ealth.Education,Labor and Pensions -428 Senate D irksen O ffice B uilding W ashington,D C 20510
H om e I P ress R eleases I P hoto G allery I H eannos I H ealth I E ducation I L abor I P ensions I N om inations IlA gislation IA bout IR S S
http://help.senate.govinew sroom /press/release/?id=dfO lde0a 74 1 ba-4499-82e9-11 8 8 8 8df8 7....:51,1 0/20 11

NLRB-FOIA-00008238
II
Page 1 of 3
F ro m : A h earn , R ich ard L .
S ent:
W ed n esd ay, M ay 11, 201111:24 A M
To:
S o lo m on, Lafe E .; M attina, C eleste J.; K earney, B arry J.; G arza, Jose; C leeland, N an cy
S u b ject: F W : S en R E ID - M U S T K E E P IN D E P E N D E N T A G E N C IE S IN D E P E N D E N T - O P E R A T E F R E E L Y
A N D W IT H O U T P O L IT IC A L P R E S S U R E
http://dem ocrats.senate.govinew sroom /record.cfm ?id=3327898c
T ;
Ei
11
D E M O C R A T IC P O L IC Y A N D
12
F or Im m ediate R elease
D ate: W ednesday,M ay 11, 2011
C O N T A C T : Jon Sum m ers, (202) 224-2939
R E ID : W E M U ST K E E P IN D E P E N D E N T A G E N C IE S IN D E P E N D E N T ,A L L O W T H E M T O
O P E R A T E F R E E L Y A N D W IT H O U T P O L IT IC A L P R E SSU R E
W ashington, D .C . N evada Senator H arry R eid m ade the follow ing rem arks today regarding the
N ational Labor R elations B oard.B elow are his rem arks as prepared for delivery:
"In a partisan environm ent, there is the tem ptation turn every issue into a political issue. W e certainly
live in one of those environm ents.
"T hat's regrettable, but far from unfam iliar. Politics play a role in our representative governm ent, of
course,and they alw ays have.T he Founders created a system of checks and balances three branches
of governm ent,for exam ple,and tw o cham bers of the C ongress precisely because they anticipated
these passions. T hey w anted to keep us from losing our w ay.
"L ong after that system w as created,a new independent federal agency w as created in the sam e spirit of
checks and balances. T hat agency is the N ational L abor R elations B oard, and it acts as a check on
em ployers and em ployees alike.It safeguards em ployees'rights to unionize or not to unionize, if they
so choose. It m ediates allegations of unfair labor practices. A nd it does all this independent of any
5/11/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008239
Page 2 of 3
outside influence.
"T he acting general counsel of the N L R B is a m an w ho is as nonpartisan and independent as the agency
he w orks for.L ast m onth,he issued a com plaint against one of A m erica's largest com panies,B oeing.
T he com plaint alleges that after B oeing w orkers in som e states w ent on strike,the com pany retaliated by
opening a new production line in a non-union facility.T hat kind of retaliation,if that's w hat happened,
is illegal.
"T hat's just the background.I'm not here to judge the m erits of the case.In fact,I'm here to do the
exact opposite: to rem ind the Senate that prejudging the case is not our job.T hat w ould overstep long-
established boundaries and w eaken our system of checks and balances.
"L ately,though,som e of our R epublican colleagues have attacked the N L R B and tried to poison the
decision-m aking process.T hey are interfering w ith case pending before a legal body.
"For exam ple,every R epublican Senator on the H EL P C om m ittee the "L " in H EL P stands for labor,
of course sentthe acting generalcounsela letter defending B oeing.T he letter itself,sentsix w eeks
before a hearing even takes place,seem s questionable at best.B ut these 10 R epublicans w ent further:
they w ent out of their w ay to link their request to the acting general counsel's pending nom ination.
Sounds like intim idation to m e.
"T hat's not all.Eight state attorneys general,all R epublicans,also signed a letter to the acting general
counsel,calling on him to w ithdraw the com plaintagainstB oeing again,long before an adm inistrative
judge has the opportunity to review the case.
"I strongly encourage all of them to take a step back.W e all know R epublicans dislike organized labor.
W e know they disdain unions because unions dem and fairness and equality from the big businesses
R epublicans so often shield at all costs.
"A nd let's be honest: R epublicans are threatened by unions.T hey're threatened because w hen a large,
organized group is so concerned w ith w orkers'rights,the m em bers of that group vote in large num bers.
A nd because R epublicans and the big businesses they defend so often try to take aw ay w orkers'rights,
w orkers don't often vote R epublican.
"B ut this kind of interference is inappropriate.It is disgraceful and dangerous.W e w ouldn't allow
threats to prosecutors or U .S.A ttorneys,trying to stop them from m oving forw ard w ith charges they see
fit to bring to the courts.A nd w e shouldn't stand for this.It m ay not be illegal,but it's no better than
the retaliation and intim idation that is the fundam ental question in this case.It should stop.
"W e need agencies like the N L R B to be able to operate freely and w ithout political pressures.W e need
to keep our independent agencies independent.T his case is for them to decide,not us."
###
T o unsubscribe from the D PC C -PR ESS list,click the follow ing link:
& *TIC K ET_U R L(D PC C -PR ESS.SIG N O FF);
5/11/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008240
P age 3 of3
N otice : T his m essa ge is intended for the addressee only and m ay contain privileged and/o r
confidential in form ation . U se or d issem inatio n by an yone o ther tha n the intende d recipien t is
prohibited.
5/11/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008241
---:-.---
1 ...f.N
'\, W V
Page 1 of 4
D aily L abo r R eport
S o u rce : D a ily L a b o r R e p o rt: N e w s A rch ive > 2 0 1 1 > M a y > 0 5 /1 0 /2 0 1 1 > N e w s > N L R B : L a w m a ke rs,
B u sin e ss G ro u p s P a n S o lo m o n A n d W h ite H o u se R o le s in N L R B B o e in g C a se
NLR B
9 0 D L R A -1
L a w m a k e rs , B u s in e s s G ro u p s P a n S o lo m o n
A n d W h ite H o u s e R o le s in N L R B B o e in g C a s e
R e p u b lica n la w m a ke rs jo in e d S o u th C a ro lin a G o v. N ikki H a le y (R ) a n d e xe cu tive s fro m se ve ra l n a tio n a l
b u sin e ss a sso cia tio n s M a y 1 0 in criticizin g N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd A ctin g G e n e ra l C o u n se l L a fe
E . S o lo m o n fo r a u th o rizin g a co n tro ve rsia l u n fa ir la b o r p ra ctice co m p la in t a g a in st B o e in g C o .
S o m e p a rticip a n ts a t a p re ss co n fe re n ce h e ld b y th e U .S . C h a m b e r o f C o m m e rce ca lle d o n P re sid e n t
O b a m a to "w e ig h in " o n th e d isp u te o r w ith d ra w S o lo m o n 's n o m in a tio n to se rve a fu ll te rm a s N L R B
g e n e ra l co u n se l.
T h e p re ss co n fe re n ce fo llo w e d a m e e tin g b e tw e e n th e la w m a ke rs a n d m o re th a n 6 0 b u sin e ss le a d e rs
th a t w a s co n ve n e d to d iscu ss th e N L R B co m p la in t, w h ich a lle g e s th a t B o e in g u n la w fu lly d e cid e d to
lo ca te so m e m a n u fa ctu rin g o f its 7 8 7 D re a m lin e r je ts in S o u th C a ro lin a in re ta lia tio n fo r th e
in vo lve m e n t o f W a sh in g to n sta te e m p lo ye e s in la w fu l e co n o m ic strike s le d b y th e In te rn a tio n a l
A sso cia tio n o f M a ch in ists.
"W e a re d e m a n d in g th a t th e p re sid e n t re sp o n d to w h a t th e N L R B h a s d o n e , b e ca u se th is g o e s a g a in st
e ve ryth in g w e kn o w o u r A m e rica n e co n o m y to b e ," H a le y sa id .
S e n . R a n d P a u l (R -K y.) sa id h e w a n ts to a sk P re sid e n t O b a m a w h e th e r th e W h ite H o u se h a s
a sse m b le d a n "e n e m ie s list" ta rg e tin g R e p u b lica n sta te s.
S e n . L a m a r A le xa n d e r (R -T e n n .) sa id h e w ill o ffe r le g isla tio n b y th e e n d o f th e w e e k th a t w o u ld
p ro te ct sta te rig h t-to -w o rk la w s a n d lim it N L R B 's a u th o rity, b u t S e n . L in d se y G ra h a m (R -S .C .) sa id th e
p re sid e n t co u ld "fix" th e B o e in g litig a tio n im m e d ia te ly b y re m o vin g S o lo m o n 's n o m in a tio n to a fu ll
te rm a s N L R B g e n e ra l co u n se l.
S e n . T o m H a rkin (D -Io w a ), ch a irm a n o f th e S e n a te H e a lth , E d u ca tio n , L a b o r a n d P e n sio n s C o m m itte e ,
re a cte d q u ickly to th e criticism o f N L R B , sa yin g R e p u b lica n s h a ve a tta cke d a "ro u tin e u n fa ir la b o r
p ra ctice ch a rg e " w ith a n "o ve rly d ra m a tic re sp o n se " a n d "d istu rb in g m isin fo rm a tio n " th a t h e sa id "h a s
n e e d le ssly co m p lica te d th e le g a l p ro ce ss a n d d isto rte d th e p u b lic d iscu ssio n o f th is ca se ."
H a le y C a lls N L R B A c tio n a n 'U n b e lie v a b le A tta c k .'
R a n d y Jo h n so n , se n io r vice p re sid e n t o f la b o r, im m ig ra tio n , a n d e m p lo ye e b e n e fits fo r th e ch a m b e r,
sa id B o e in g h a s fin ish e d b u ild in g th e fa cility in N o rth C h a rle sto n , S .C ., w h e re a n o n u n io n w o rkfo rce is
e xp e cte d to b u ild th re e D re a m lin e rs p e r m o n th , w h ile IA M -re p re se n te d e m p lo ye e s in th e P u g e t S o u n d
a re a b u ild se ve n p e r m o n th . T h e u n io n file d a M a rch 2 0 1 0 u n fa ir la b o r p ra ctice ch a rg e a lle g in g th a t
th e d e cisio n to m o ve so m e p ro d u ctio n fro m W a sh in g to n to S o u th C a ro lin a w a s u n la w fu l d iscrim in a tio n
a g a in st th e u n io n -re p re se n te d w o rke rs, a n d N L R B 's A p ril 2 0 co m p la in t a g a in st th e co m p a n y m a ke s th e
sa m e a lle g a tio n (7 7 D L R A A -1 , 4 /2 1 /1 1 ).
C a llin g th e E a st C o a st a ircra ft p ro d u ctio n n e w w o rk th a t w a s n o t ta ke n a w a y fro m th e IA M -
re p re se n te d w o rke rs, Jo h n so n sa id "th e p re ce d e n t th a t th e N L R B is a tte m p tin g to e sta b lish h e re is so
fu n d a m e n ta lly u n so u n d a n d tro u b le so m e th a t it ca n n o t b e ig n o re d ," e xp la in in g th e ch a m b e r's d e cisio n
to h o st a m e e tin g th a t se ve ra l sp e a ke rs ca lle d a n u rg e n t se ssio n .
H a le y to ld re p o rte rs th a t th e B o e in g d isp u te "is a n issu e th a t m a y h a ve sta rte d in S o u th C a ro lin a , b u t
w e w a n t to m a ke su re th a t it n e ve r to u ch e s a n o th e r sta te ."
S ta tin g th a t jo b cre a tio n w ill b e "ke y" in th e U n ite d S ta te s in co m in g ye a rs, H a le y sa id th e e ffe ct o f th e
N L R B co m p la in t w a s to te ll b u sin e sse s th a t n o t o n ly co u ld th e y n o t d o b u sin e ss in a rig h t-to -w o rk
5/11/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008242
Page 2 of 4
sta te , b u t th a t th e y sh o u ld cre a te jo b s o ve rse a s. "T h a t's w h a t th e p re sid e n t is sa yin g th ro u g h L a fe
S o lo m o n ," H a le y sa id .
P re sid e n t O b a m a "h a s g o t to sp e a k u p w e n e e d to se e le a d e rsh ip ," H a le y a d d e d . T h e p re sid e n t, sh e
sa id , "h a s to te ll u s, if w e ca n 't cre a te n e w jo b s th is w a y, h o w e xa ctly a re w e su p p o se d to cre a te
jo b s."
T h e S o u th C a ro lin a g o ve rn o r ca lle d th e co m p la in t a g a in st B o e in g "a n u n b e lie va b le a tta ck o n n o t ju st
rig h t-to -w o rk sta te s b u t e ve ry sta te th a t is a tte m p tin g to p u t th e ir p e o p le to w o rk."
L a w m a k e rs D e fe n d B o e in g , C ritic ize W h ite H o u s e ,
G ra h a m sa id B o e in g m a d e th e d e cisio n to lo ca te so m e o f its D re a m lin e r p ro d u ctio n in S o u th C a ro lin a
a fte r th e co m p a n y re ce ive d m o re o rd e rs th a n e xp e cte d . "T h e y h a d a d ile m m a o f e xp a n d in g
b u sin e sse s, w h ich is a g re a t d ile m m a to h a ve ," h e sa id . T h e co m p a n y co n su lte d w ith th e W a sh in g to n
sta te u n io n s re p re se n tin g B o e in g e m p lo ye e s, G ra h a m sa id , b u t m a d e a d e cisio n to lo ca te its se co n d
a sse m b ly lin e in S o u th C a ro lin a a fte r co n sid e rin g its o p tio n s, w h ich in clu d e d a n a ttra ctive p a cka g e o f
in ce n tive s fro m th e sta te o f S o u th C a ro lin a .
T h e se n a to r sa id u n d e r th e la w th e co m p a n y h a d a rig h t to m a ke th e d e cisio n it d id , b u t N L R B 's a ctin g
g e n e ra l co u n se l h a s issu e d a co m p la in t G ra h a m ca lle d "ch illin g ." If a ch ie f e xe cu tive o ffice r's re m a rks
a b o u t th e co st o f d o in g b u sin e ss in o n e lo ca tio n ca n p re ve n t th e firm fro m e ve r re lo ca tin g to a n o th e r
lo ca tio n , h e w a rn e d , "yo u 're g o in g to d e stro y th e e co n o m y."
G ra h a m co m m e n te d th a t B ill D a le y, fo rm e r se cre ta ry o f co m m e rce d u rin g th e C lin to n a d m in istra tio n
a n d n o w O b a m a 's ch ie f o f sta ff, se rve d o n B o e in g 's b o a rd o f d ire cto rs in 2 0 0 9 w h e n th e b o a rd
a p p ro ve d th e b u ild in g o f B o e in g 's se co n d p ro d u ctio n lin e in S o u th C a ro lin a . G ra h a m a rg u e d th a t e ith e r
th e O b a m a "ve tte rs" w h o co n sid e re d D a le y fo r th e W h ite H o u se jo b co n sid e re d th e N L R B co m p la in t
a g a in st B o e in g w ith o u t m e rit, o r "th e y w e n t a n d h ire d so m e o n e w h o b u sts u n io n s a t th e W h ite
H ouse."
T h e se n a to r a lso sa id O b a m a n a m e d B o e in g 's C h ie f E xe cu tive O ffice r Jim M cN e rn e y to th e P re sid e n t's
E xp o rt C o u n cil. T h e D a le y a n d M cN e rn e y a p p o in tm e n ts, h e sa id , a re th e "b e st e vid e n ce " th a t th e N L R B
co m p la in t a g a in st th e a ircra ft m a n u fa ctu re r is frivo lo u s.
S e n . Jim D e M in t (R -S .C .) jo in e d H a le y a n d G ra h a m , a n d ca lle d N L R B 's a ctio n o n th e u n fa ir la b o r
p ra ctice ch a rg e "p a n d e rin g to u n io n s," w h ile R e p . Jo e W ilso n (R -S .C .) co m p la in e d th a t th e N L R B a ctio n
u n d e rm in e d H a le y's a b ility to re cru it b u sin e sse s to b u ild in S o u th C a ro lin a . "C le a rly," W ilso n sa id ,
B o e in g 's d e cisio n to co n d u ct so m e o f its D re a m lin e r p ro d u ctio n in S o u th C a ro lin a "is n o t re ta lia tio n
th is is cre a tin g jo b s."
R a n d P a u l b e g a n w ith a q u e stio n fo r th e p re sid e n t: "M r. P re sid e n t, d o yo u h a ve a n e n e m ie s list? " P a u l
q u e stio n e d w h e th e r th e d e cisio n m a d e in th e B o e in g ca se w a s m a d e b e ca u se th e sta te "a p p e a rs to b e
a R e p u b lica n sta te , w ith tw o R e p u b lica n se n a to rs," o r w h e th e r th e co m p la in t w a s issu e d b e ca u se
S o u th C a ro lin a is a rig h t-to -w o rk sta te .
N o tin g th a t K e n tu cky h a s tw o R e p u b lica n se n a to rs, P a u l a ske d , "A re w e o n yo u r e n e m ie s list? "
Q u e stio n in g w h e th e r th e g o ve rn m e n t w a s sa yin g b u sin e sse s co u ld n o t lo ca te in sta te s th a t h a p p e n e d
to b e R e p u b lica n , P a u l sa id "I fin d th is a p p a llin g a n d I e xp e ct th e p re sid e n t to im m e d ia te ly re scin d th is
a ssa u lt o n b u sin e ss."
A le x a n d e r N e a rin g F in a l D ra ft o f L e g is la tio n
S e n . L a m a r A le xa n d e r (R -T e n n .) sa id h e , G ra h a m , D e M in t, a n d P a u l a re co n tin u in g to w o rk o n
le g isla tio n , th e p ro p o se d R ig h t to W o rk P ro te ctio n A ct (8 5 D L R A -1 0 , 5 /3 /1 1 ), w h ich h e ca lle d
im p o rta n t fo r e ve ry sta te in th e co u n try a n d fo r m a n u fa ctu re rs tryin g to d e te rm in e w h e th e r th e y w ill
b e a b le to m a n u fa ctu re in th e U n ite d S ta te s th e p ro d u cts th e y se ll in th is co u n try.
"I ca n 't th in k o f o n e sin g le a ctio n th e fe d e ra l g o ve rn m e n t co u ld ta ke th a t w o u ld m a ke it h a rd e r to
b rin g n e w jo b s in to T e n n e sse e th a n th is B o e in g co m p la in t, if it w e re to b e co m e th e la w ," A le xa n d e r
said.
A le xa n d e r sa id N issa n a n d o th e r a u to m a ke rs d e cid e d to b u ild ca rs in rig h t-to -w o rk sta te s in

the
S o u th e a st b e ca u se o f th e "d iffe re n t u n io n e n viro n m e n t" o ffe re d in th o se sta te s. N issa n n o w sa ys it w ill
m a ke in th e U n ite d S ta te s 8 5 p e rce n t o f w h a t th e co m p a n y se lls h e re , A le xa n d e r sa id , a n d sa id "th a t's
w h a t w e w a n t."
5/11/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008243
Page 3 of 4
A le xa n d e r sa id th e d ra ft le g isla tio n w o u ld stre n g th th e p ro te ctio n o f rig h t-to -w o rk la w s u n d e r th e
N L R A , a n d w o u ld p re ve n t N L R B fro m g o in g fo rw a rd w ith its ca se a g a in st B o e in g "o r a tte m p tin g th e
sa m e stra te g y a g a in st o th e r co m p a n ie s." T h e le g isla tio n w o u ld lim it th e b o a rd fro m o rd e rin g a n
e m p lo ye r n o t to re lo ca te jo b s fro m o n e lo ca tio n to a n o th e r, h e sa id , a n d w o u ld g u a ra n te e a n
e m p lo ye r's rig h t to d e cid e w h e re it sh o u ld d o b u sin e ss.
T h e T e n n e sse e se n a to r sa id th e p ro p o se d le g isla tio n a lso w o u ld p ro te ct th e rig h t o f a n e m p lo ye r to
e n g a g e in fre e sp e e ch o n th e su b je ct o f th e co sts a sso cia te d w ith h a vin g a u n io n ize d w o rk fo rce
"w ith o u t fe a r o f su ch co m m u n ica tio n b e in g u se d a s e vid e n ce in a n a n ti-u n io n d iscrim in a tio n ca se ."
A le xa n d e r sa id th e re h a ve b e e n a "n u m b e r" o f se n a to rs in te re ste d in th e p ro p o se d R ig h t to W o rk A ct.
H e sa id a d ra ft o f th e b ill w ill b e circu la te d in th e n e xt d a y o r tw o a n d h e e xp e cts it to b e in tro d u ce d b y
th e e n d o f th e w e e k. H e o b se rve d th a t 2 2 sta te s a re rig h t-to -w o rk sta te s a n d so m e h a ve D e m o cra tic
se n a to rs w h o m a y su p p o rt th e b ill.
B u s in e s s G ro u p s _ lo in in P ro te s t
Jo h n E n g le r, fo rm e r R e p u b lica n g o ve rn o r o f M ich ig a n a n d n o w p re sid e n t o f th e B u sin e ss R o u n d ta b le ,
sa id h is g ro u p co n sid e rs th e N L R B co m p la in t a g a in st B o e in g a th re a t n o t o n ly to th e a irp la n e b u ild e r,
b u t to e ve ry co m p a n y h e a d q u a rte re d in th e U n ite d S ta te s.
E n g le r sa id h is g ro u p re p re se n ts co m p a n ie s w ith n e a rly $ 6 trillio n in a n n u a l re ve n u e s a n d
a p p ro xim a te ly 1 3 m illio n e m p lo ye e s. T h e g ro u p 's vie w , h e sa id is th a t th e N L R B co m p la in t is "w ro n g -
h e a d e d " a n d u n su p p o rte d b y le g a l p re ce d e n t, b u t w o u ld e sta b lish a n "o m in o u s" p re ce d e n t lim itin g th e
a b ility o f co m p a n ie s to se ttle in th e m o st a ttra ctive a n d co m p e titive b u sin e ss e n viro n m e n ts th e y ca n
id e n tify.
T h e B u sin e ss R o u n d ta b le p re sid e n t a ske d N L R B to "ste p b a ck" fro m th e B o e in g co m p la in t, a n d
su g g e ste d th a t P re sid e n t O b a m a sh o u ld cla rify h is p o sitio n o n th e issu e , w h ile C o n g re ss a cts o n
le g isla tio n to e n su re "th a t th is n e ve r a g a in sh o u ld b e co m e a n issu e ."
D a n Y a g e r, ch ie f p o licy o ffice r a n d g e n e ra l co u n se l o f H R P o licy A sso cia tio n , re p re se n tin g th e ch ie f
h u m a n re so u rce o ffice rs o f m o re th a n 3 2 0 U .S . co m p a n ie s, sa id h is g ro u p h a s n o t se e n th e B o e in g
co n tro ve rsy a s a "rig h t-to -w o rk ve rsu s n o n -rig h t-to -w o rk issu e ."
W h a t h a p p e n e d in th e ca se a g a in st B o e in g , Y a g e r sa id , is th a t th e co m p a n y h a s b e e n p e n a lize d fo r
b e in g o p e n a n d d iscu ssin g m a n a g e m e n t co n ce rn s w ith th e u n io n re p re se n ta tive o f its P u g e t S o u n d
e m p lo ye e s b e fo re g o in g fo rw a rd . T h e co m p a n y h a d th e rig h t u n d e r its co lle ctive b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t
to d e cid e p la n t lo ca tio n s w ith o u t b a rg a in in g , Y a g e r sa id , a n d sim p ly trie d to w o rk issu e s o u t th ro u g h
d iscu ssio n s th a t w e re u n su cce ssfu l.
Y a g e r sa id h e b e lie ve s th a t B o e in g w ill w in th e u n fa ir la b o r p ra ctice ca se b ro u g h t a g a in st it. H e sa id "if
th e a ctin g g e n e ra l co u n se l's vie w o f la b o r re la tio n s is co rre ct, o f w h a t th e la w is, th e n la b o r re la tio n s in
th is co u n try is m u ch m o re b ro ke n th a t I ce rta in ly th o u g h t it w a s."
G ra h a m
C a lls fo r W h ite H o u se In te r v e n tio n
In answ er to a q u e stio n a b o u t th e p re sid e n t's ro le in a ca se th a t is b e in g h a n d le d b y a n in d e p e n d e n t
fe d e ra l a g e n cy, G ra h a m sa id h e u n d e rsta n d s N L R B 's in d e p e n d e n ce , b u t h e sa id "th is is le g a l sla n d e r,
fo r la ck o f a b e tte r w o rd " a n d ca lle d th e B o e in g co m p la in t "o u t o f b o u n d s w h e n it co m e s to p re ce d e n t."
G ra h a m sa id th e re w a s n o p re ce d e n t fo r a ca se like th e o n e a g a in st B o e in g b e ca u se "n o b o d y in th e ir
rig h t m in d w o u ld m a ke th e se co n clu sio n s u n le ss yo u h a d a n a g e n d a b e yo n d th e la w ."
G ra h a m sa id th e N L R B co m p la in t "is g o in g n o w h e re " a n d B o e in g w ill sta y in S o u th C a ro lin a . "T h e
re a so n w e 're p u sh in g b a ck," h e sa id , is th a t th e p re sid e n t h a s m a d e "so m e a p p o in tm e n ts" a t N L R B
th a t a re "o u t o f th e m a in stre a m ." G ra h a m sa id th e co n se q u e n ce s o f th e co m p la in t a g a in st B o e in g
co u ld b e "a b so lu te ly d e va sta tin g " a n d sa id "p o litica l a p p o in te e s h a ve m a d e jo b cre a tin g

very d ifficu lt."
"T h e p re sid e n t co u ld fix th is," G ra h a m sa id . "H e co u ld re m o ve th e n o m in a tio n o f M r. S o lo m o n , w h o
w ill n e ve r se e th e lig h t o f d a y in th e S e n a te ."
H a rk in S e e s 'A s s a u lt o n th e M id d le C la s s .'
In a sta te m e n t re le a se d sh o rtly a fte r th e p re ss co n fe re n ce , H a rkin sa id "[w ]h a t w e a re re a lly
w itn e ssin g h e re is a n o th e r e xa m p le o f th e R e p u b lica n a ssa u lt o n th e m id d le cla ss th a t has been
5/11/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008244
. . . .
Page 4 of 4
e ch o in g a cro ss th e co u n try fo r m o n th s n o w ."
"In ste a d o f fo cu sin g o n h o w w e ca n g e t A m e rica n s w o rkin g a g a in a n d g e t th e m id d le cla ss b a ck o n its
fe e t, R e p u b lica n s h a ve ch o se n to sp e n d th e ir tim e a tta ckin g th e h a n d lin g o f a ro u tin e u n fa ir la b o r
p ra ctice ch a rg e . T h is o ve rly d ra m a tic re sp o n se a n d th e d istu rb in g m isin fo rm a tio n th e y a re p e d d lin g
h a s n e e d le ssly co m p lica te d th e le g a l p ro ce ss a n d d isto rte d th e p u b lic d iscu ssio n o f th is ca se ," H a rkin
said.
T h e Io w a se n a to r a d d e d th a t "o p p o n e n ts o f w o rke rs'rig h ts h a ve a lso m isch a ra cte rize d th e
fu n d a m e n ta l issu e a t sta ke , su g g e stin g th a t th is ca se re p re se n ts a n a ssa u lt o n 'rig h t to w o rk'la w s,"
a n a sse rtio n h e ca lle d "ju st fa ctu a lly in co rre ct."
H a rkin sa id "u n io n s a re o n e o f th e fe w vo ice s le ft in o u r so cie ty sp e a kin g u p fo r th e little g u y, a n d if
w e le t p o w e rfu l C E O s tra m p le a ll o ve r th e se rig h ts w ith o u t co n se q u e n ce s, w e m ig h t a s w e ll g ive u p o n
h a vin g a m id d le cla ss a lto g e th e r."
H a rkin sa id h is S e n a te co m m itte e w ill h o ld a h e a rin g T h u rsd a y o n "w h y th e m id d le cla ss is in cre a sin g ly
slip p in g o u t o f re a ch fo r A m e rica n s." T h e B o e in g litig a tio n w ill like ly co m e u p fo r d iscu ssio n ; a m o n g
th e w itn e sse s sch e d u le d to a p p e a r a re B o e in g G e n e ra l C o u n se l J. M ich a e l L u ttig , w h o h a s b e e n ve ry
critica l o f th e N L R B co m p la in t, a n d S a ra h F o x, a fo rm e r D e m o cra tic N L R B m e m b e r w h o n o w se rve s a s
le g a l co u n se l to th e A F L -C IO .
S o lo m o n sa id in a M a y 9 sta te m e n t o n th e N L R B w e b site th a t th e co m p la in t a g a in st B o e in g is "ju st th e
b e g in n in g o f a le g a l p ro ce ss" th a t w ill m o ve fo rw a rd to a h e a rin g o n Ju n e 1 4 a n d co n sid e ra tio n b y a n
a d m in istra tive la w ju d g e a n d th e b o a rd . "W e h o p e a ll in te re ste d p a rtie s re sp e ct th e le g a l p ro ce ss,
ra th e r th a n tryin g to litig a te th is ca se in th e m e d ia a n d p u b lic a re n a ," h e sa id .
B y L a w re n ce E . D u b e
C o n ta ct u s a t h ttp ://w w w .b n a .co m /co n ta ct/in d e x.h tm l o r ca ll 1 -8 0 0 -3 7 2 -1 0 3 3
IS S N 1 5 2 2 -5 9 6 8
C o p yrig h t (c) 2 0 1 1 , T h e B u re a u o f N a tio n a l A ffa irs, In c.. R e p ro d u ctio n o r re d istrib u tio n , in w h o le o r in p a rt,
a n d in a n y fo rm , w ith o u t e xp re ss w ritte n p e rm issio n , is p ro h ib ite d e xce p t a s p e rm itte d b y th e B N A C o p yrig h t
P o licy. h ttp ://w w w .b n a .co rn /co rp /in d e x.h tm l# V
5/11/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008245
Labor N ew s
C o n tact: C o n n ie K ellih er 206-764-0343 o ffice, 206-755-8575 cell
B ryan C o rliss 206-764-0357 o ffice, 425-327-3512 cell
F O R IM M E D IA T E R E L E A S E : M ay 4, 2011
B o ein g U ses C lo u t to B lo ck F ed eral L aw E n fo rcem en t A ctio n
The B oeing C om pany has long been a top spender in the W ashington legislature to gain
lo w tax rates an d o th er co rp o rate b en efits. N o w it is tryin g to u se its clo u t in th e o th er
W ash in g to n to in tim id ate an d co erce th e fed eral ag en cy in vestig atin g B o ein g 's u n law fu l
retaliation against its w orkers in the P uget S ound.
O n A p ril 20, th e N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s B o ard , w h ich is ch arg ed w ith p ro tectin g
w o rkers' rig h ts to en g ag e in co llective b arg ain in g , issu ed a co m p lain t ag ain st B o ein g fo r
retaliating against its w orkers w ho engaged in collective activity by m oving part of their w ork on
the new 787 D ream liner to ano ther state. B oeing pub licly adm itted that its prim ary m o tive w as
because of its w orkers'exercise of their rights.
Y esterday, in an unprecedented attack on a federallaw enforcem ent agency,B oeing's top
law yer sent a 10-page public rant to the agency, attacking and dem anding that the agency's law
enforcem ent efforts be w ithdraw n. S uch a letter is highly unusual, as it seeks to underm ine the
A gency's authority to perform its statutory duties. Typically, em ployers charged by the A gency
m ake their defenses at a legalhearing,w hich has already been scheduled,and do not seek to take
dow n the A gency itself.
T h en , ten U .S . S en ato rs frien d ly to B o ein g 's an ti-w o rker m essag e ch allen g ed th e ch ief
law en fo rcem en t o fficer o f th e ag en cy. T h at p u b lic o fficial, a 39-year career atto rn ey at th e
agency w ith no ties to organized labor, is up for c o n firm a tio n in th e U .S . S e n a te la te r th is y e a r.
"In m y 28 years of practicing labor law , I have never seen an em ployer use these types of
o vertly p o litical tactics to avo id a leg al p ro ceed in g ," said D avid C am p b ell, IA M D istrict 751
law yer. "R ath er than face the m u sic at th e Ju ne 14 hearin g, the B oeing C o m pan y is ap paren tly
trying to kill the case politically. This tactic show s all too clearly how desperate the C om pany is
to avoid litigating the m erits of a case it know s it w ill lose."
The N LR B 's case against B oeing rests upon B oeing's ow n adm issions that it sought to
avo id law fu l co llective activity in W ash in g to n state. W h ile B o ein g claim s th at it is free to take
NLRB-FOIA-00008246
w hatever action it thinks m ay be necessary to avoid collective bargaining and strike activity,that
is sim ply not the law .Just as the law prohibits discrim ination against w histleblow ers or w orkers
w ho take fam ily leave,A m erica's law s protect w orkers w ho engage in collective activity.
This case presents a sim ple issue: D o big com panies have to obey the law ? If em ployers
can retaliate against w orkers w ho exercise rights that are protected by law ,then those rights w ill
b e g o n e. T h e N L R B 's lo n g -term p ro fessio n al R eg io n al S taff, N atio n al O ffice o f A d vice an d
G eneralCounselreview ed this case for a year,found convincing m erit,and issued a com plaint.
The hearing should continue according to its rules like any law enforcem ent process.
If, as B o ein g claim s, th e case is frivo lo u s, it w ill h ave th e o p p o rtu n ity to p resen t its
argum ent before a judge on June 14 in S eattle.It can appealthe judge's decision to m em bers of
the N ationalLabor R elations B oard.If it is stillunsatisfied,it can appealto the federalcourts.
Instead of follow ing the rule of law ,B oeing is using its trem endous politicalclout to try
to stop the actions of an independent federallaw enforcem ent agency.S uch tactics m ight w ork
in corrupt nations w here m oney not the law rules,but should not here in A m erica.
##
NLRB-FOIA-00008247
Tile Post and C ourier - B oeing: L anding in the L ow country - C harleston SC - postandcour... Page 1 of :4
4 1 /J a C
rea lm
C o n n ect w ith u s: S u b scrib er R ew ard s I R ep ort N ew s I M ob ile I T ext A lerts I N ew s b y E -m ail I T w itter I R S S I M ed ia K it I E -E d ition I C on tact U s
C u sto m er C are
"S e a rc h l
,1 4 -
H om e
N ew s
vd ,:y
R o p E R su F R A rscis
II A l II IC A K I )
W a tch d o g S p o rts W ea th er B u sin ess M u ltim ed ia E n terta in m en t F ea tu res S u p p lem en ts B lo g s E d ito ria l C la ssified s
L o co , B u ttre ss I B u sin e ss R e vie w R e e l E va to A u to m o tive IC o lu m u sts
Thursday, O ctober 28,2010
Please L og In or R egister
W elcom e B oeing E m ployees
B o ein g m akes L o w co u n try lan d in g
L atest n ew s
T h e latest on B oein g's m ove to N orth C h arleston
C om in g to C h arleston
W e can h elp you fin d you r n ew h om e h ere
G et to k n ow u s
P h otos of C h arleston an d th e su rrou n d in g com m u n ities
http://w w w .postandcouriencom /stories/2009/oct/29/boeing-co-lands-low country/
10/28/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008248
'
The Post and C ourier - B oeing: L anding in the L ow country - C harleston SC - postandcour...Page 2 of 4
W h at to d o
C h arleston S cen e h as th e latest en tertain m en t in form ation
G et to know Y our L ow country
E A ST C O O PE R
D O W N TO W N
NO RTH
111:It
I1O R C 'H I"ti
C O L N 1 1 1 -.5 ,S t C H A R L E S T O N .
M ore B oeing N ew s
OFF
11
V a ttiji U T P U R C H A S E '
fl
A ny P urchase 51000 O r M ora
C lick For C oupon
s L it4 D
w ew .bm i
2 0 5 7 8 0 0
Sum m ennlie A rea
418.4-3454
C harleston A rea
7 5 7 9 5 5 1
riiidiinc.m m
B luffton/H ilton H ead
""'""*"...tb o xisexxxxxx.xxxl"924m a
R elocation R esou rces
Y o u r g u id e fo r C h arlesto n area in fo rm atio n
R eal E state R eso u rce G u id e
S o u th C aro lin a M o rtg ag e
R ates
C h arlesto n C o u n ty tax
In fo rm atio n
C lassified s
Jo b s
R eal E state
C ars
E n tertain m en t
A rea s ch o o ls In fo rm a tio n
B erkeley C o u n ty S ch o o l
D istrict
C h arlesto n C o u n ty S ch o o l
D istrict
D o rch ester C o u n ty S ch o o l
D istrict 2
D o rch ester C o u n ty S ch o o l
D istrict 4
S ch o o l rep o rt card s
D ep t o f E d u catio n
- fro m th e S C
L ocal B u sin ess D irectory
L o w C o u n tryM arketp lace.co m
C h a rm in g In n s In c
212 1/2 K ing S t S te 301
C harleston,S C
(843)722-8680
R estauran ts E nlertaim nent H ealth R edl E state
H om e & G arden C oupons
IC haries-ton A rea E vents
http://w w w .postandcourier.com /stories/2009/oct/29/boeing-co-lands-low country/
10/28/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008249
' T h e Post and C ourier - B oeing: L anding in the L ow country - C harleston SC - postandcour...Page 3 of 4
B o e in g to m a rk c o n s tru c tio n m ile s to n e F rid a y .
T
i
t .
.,
1
'...
F V E N 1S V E N U E S D IN IN G
E vents by day
28
29
30
Thu Fri
Sat
,.,
. B o ein g C o w ill m ark a co n stru ctio n trad itio n F rid ay w h en w o rk ers p u t in p lace th e last fin al p iece o f r..1
II1
structural steel on the aircraft assem bly plant the com pany is building at C harleston International A irport f..
r1
, I
-.R e a d M o re
31
Sun
2
M on
Tue
Search for events
he g .concert,festival)
S u b m it an even t I A d van ced search
A ll
Events
Search '
5 30 pm Y outh M artial A rts
6 pm B razilian Jiu-Jitsu
. I
7 pm S unset B lues and B B Q C ruise
I
7 pm T he R ed P arty at the O ld C ity Jail is...
945 pm A m erican A quarium
' 1
.I
B o e in g te s tin g 7 8 7 s in S o u th w e s t, M o n ta n a , Ic e la n d
F rid ay , S ep t. 3 , 2 0 1 0
E V E R E T T , W ash B oeing C o. says four of its five 787 flight test planes are far from their S eattle base
th is w eek at lo catio n s ran g in g fro m A n zo n a to Icelan d -R ead M o re
-L
--
- -
-- -
S c F IN E P R O P E R TIE S .C O M
W elcom e to the collection ofFine
South C arolina R ealE state
B o e in g lo s e s 2 6 je t o rd e rs
C o m p an y in u n ite d A ra b E m ira te s c an c els 2 5 p lan es , a n o th er cu s to m er d ro p s 7 37
S atu rd ay , A u g 7 . 2 0 1 0
--
'
-- L
D A L L A S -- A n aircraft-leasing com pany in the U nited A rab E m irates has canceled
o rd ers fo r d o zen s o f p lan es fro m B o ein g C o an d A irb u s 'R ead M o re
G e t y o u r
F IN E
P R O P E R TY
v id e o lis tin g o n
th e *I w e b s ite in
C h a rle s to n .
YO U D O V T P A I
L rV T IL 771L L IST IN G
SIL L C f
'!A il sid ed e W in be o f
'
-..-4;
S 7 S 0 ,0 0 0 & lia r
propertw e allai higher
B o e in g w o rk w in g s it w a y to G re e n v ille a re a
M o n d ay , A u g 2 , 2 0 1 0
A N D E R S O N -- S outh C arolina's new B oeing assem bly facility is under construction in N orth C harleston,
but a lot of the w ork is going to com panies w ith G reenville connections
.R e a d M o re
P h o to G allery : view all g alleries
a.
, w
...
B o e in g p ro fit d o w n ; d e fe n s e la y o ffs lik e ly
T h u rsd ay , Ju ly 7 9 , 2 0 1 0
.1....;
., ..1
B o ein g :
M IN N E A P O L IS -- B oeing C o.'s second-quarter profit fell 21 percent, and it said layoffs
are likely in its defense business because of expected governm ent spending cuts and
bargain hunting P rofits and revenue fell in B oeing's airplane and defense businesses
'R ead M o re
W orkers al the B oeing plant near C harleston
international A irport continue to construct fuselage
sections 47 and 48 for the new B oeing 787 as local
. and state officials w ait for new s on w here B oeing w ill
O rd e rs k ic k o ff a ir s h o w
F a rn b o ro u g h e ve n t a lre ad y ex ce ed e d so m e ex p ec ta tio n s
Tuesday. Ju ly 2 0 , 2 0 1 0
F A R N B O R O U G H , E ngland -- B oeing C o and E uropean arch nval A irbus racked up billions of dollars w orth
of aircraft sales at the F arnborough International A irshow on M onday, raising hopes that the aviation
industry has touched the bottom of a deep tw o-year dow nturn. -+ R ead_M ta:e
A ir s h o w k ic k s o ff w ith s m a ll flu rry o f o rd e rs
M o n d ay , Ju ly 1 9 . 2 0 1 0
S IM
I build a second production line for the passenger jet.
lig P hoto G allery: V iew B oeing G allery
fieciiim
7 8 7 d e liv e ry h its s n a g
S E A T T L E -- T he first delivery of B oeing's new but delayed 787 Jetliner m ight slip into
early 2011 because of inspections and instrum ent changes on the flight-test aircraft,
th e h ead o f th e p ro g ram said T h u rsd ay R e a d M o re
- --
- ------
The follow ing advertisers w ould like to w elcom e B oeing,
to G reater C harleston'
1
'
!
l
!
!
S an d y B ray, R ealto r, C en tu ry
21 P rop erties P lu s
H olly C ulp, R ealtor, A gent
O w ned
D ivine R edeem er C atholic
S chool
B ruce B ow ers, R ealtor,
C ald w ell B an ker
M yers M ill by K eybullders
F A R N B O R O U G H , E ngland A rch rivals B oeing C o and A irbus announced new orders _
w orth alm ost $13 billion at the start of the F arnborough International A irshow on
M onday, raising hopes that the aviation industry is on the w ay back up after a dire
!
tw o-year slum p M eanw hile, B oeing's new 787 D ream liner plane has m ade its m aiden
1
v o y ag e o u tsid e th e u n ited S tates, to u ch in g d o w n at th e air sh o w 'R ead
M o re
;
I
I
1
!
In s p e c tio n s , c h a n g e s m a y p u s h a rriv a l in to e a rly 2 0 1 1
F rid ay , Ju ly 1 6 . 2 0 1 0
S p on sors
B uckshlre by K eybullders
W alter M u eller - E X IT R ealty
C harleston
D an iel R aven el R eal E state
C o m p an y
C lim ate M asters In d o o r
S to rag e/C arr P ro p erties
D o u g S h o rter P ro p erty
M an agem en t
E dgew ater P lantation
A partm ents
1
!
1
I
1
T h e T rad itio n A p artm en t
1
H om es
N orth w ood s Tow nhom es
I W o o d field S t. Jam es
1 A p artm en ts
http://w w w .postandcourier.com /stories/2009/oct/29/boeing-co-lands-low country/
10/28/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008250
The Postand C ourier - B oeing:Landing in the Low country - C harleston SC
- postandcour...Page
, W o o d fie ld S o u th P o in t
1 A p a rtm e n ts
M artin 's C reek A p artm en ts
i C h u rc h ill C o m m o n s
A p artm en ts
C astlew o o d T o w n h o u ses
O ak R id g e T o w n h o u ses
H elen e S ettle/D an iel R aven el
; R e a l E s ta te
E h w an P o in te
; T o w n h o m e s /S o u th e a s te m
R ecap italizatio n
."-
1V IO X 1C
J 011
1 th e co n ve rsa tio n
I.
countge. dctenninotirel2. I jeer. % enc. pep. 3. skull. knrrikihev:-
M N Post antieourier
, M o re o n p o stan d co u rien co m
Im p o rta n t L in ks
H om e ; N ew s S po rts I E nter:a inm ert 1 F eatu i es W et) E xt ,as I E ditonai
O h L a n e s , w e b lo g s I A re live s I S :e m a p
S ubscribe I A bout U s 1 C lassifieds A utom otive I R ea, E s.ale I C areers
S hops rg 1 S dpplem ents 1 P lace a C lassified
C opyright 0 1995 - 2310 E vening P ost P ublish rg C o
T h e P o st a n c C o a re r - C h a rle sto n S C 1 T h e S a lisb u iy P ast - S a isb e r, N C 1 T h ? ra g lo - B rycn iC e le g o S t-T o i T X I T h e G e o rg e lciw n T im o s G e o rg e :o w n S C
T h e :K in g stre e : N e w s K n g ske e , S C i A ike n S ta n d ird A ike n , S C 1 M o u ltrie N e w s M o u n t P e a sa n t 5 '2 I T h e Jo u m a Ja m e s sla n t' a n d F o lly B e a ch S C '
n e C ie r e sia n M e icxy C rie r e sto n , S C 1 S u n m e n a ile Jo u rn a l S ce n e S jm m e riil e S C I n e B e rke le y In d e p e n d sn t M o n cks C o m e r S C
G o o se C re e k G a ze tte G o o se C re e K , S C
iD a n e C o u n ty E n te i e n s. (N C ) 1 T h e C le ft'm o ss C o u n e r - (N C )
Jse of this site signifies your agreem ent to the T erm s of service P rivacy policy qnd our P arental consent form (U pdated 2/9/20-37)
http://w w w .postandcourier.corn/stories/2009/oct/29/boeing-co-lands-low country/
10/28/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008251
N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s B o ard
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Advice M em orandum
S.A.M.
FROM.
D A T E
April 11, 2011
Richard L. Ahearn, Regional Director
Region 19
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
facility where unit employees work on the original assembly.
(1) the Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by thr6atening to
We conclude that the Region .should issue a complaint
activity. However, the, Region should dismiss the Section
NLRB-FOIA-00008252
Case 19-CA-32431
- 2 -
F A C T S
Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) and certain IAM
decisions affecting less than
to subcontracting and of
work, to make and
the right to subcontract and of
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00008253
Case 19-CA-32431
- 3 -
line for its new 787 "Dreamliner" airplane In Everett,
collective-bargaining agreement. .During those negotiations,
McNerney sent a long e-mail to Boeing employees about the
NLRB-FOIA-00008254
Case 19-CA-32431
- 4 -
conference in Everett. In a S e a ttle Tim es

article, he was
On February 9, the S e a ttle T im e s

reported that Washington
Management & Operations Ray Conner. IAM representatives
1 In his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
2
in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
Dates are in 2009 unless otherwise noted.
NLRB-FOIA-00008255
Case 19-CA-32431
- 5 -
As a follow-up to this summit, Wroblewski and IAM
the Vought plant in North Charleston, South Carolina. IAM
that as a result of past strikes, the Company would place the /
second line outside the Puget -Sound area unless it could reach
st'ating that it preferred to "deal with employees directly
NLRB-FOIA-00008256
Case 19-CA-32431
- 6 -
the end of each of thethree-year contracts. The Union said
2, Kight presented an. hour-long video on Boeing's website
NLRB-FOIA-00008257
Case 19-CA-32431
do.
The Parties Meet over a Long-Term Agreement
NLRB-FOIA-00008258
Case 19-CA-32431
- 8 -
Carolina.
get back to him.
NLRB-FOIA-00008259
Case 19-CA-32431
- 9 -
couple of weeks."
not respond. On October 24, Michalski called Senior Vice
NLRB-FOIA-00008260
Case 19-CA-32431
- 1 0 -
contract separate suppliers for the South Carolina assembly
Journal on December 8 discussed this announcement. The
The Puget Sound Business journal quoted Conner as follows:
customers."
NLRB-FOIA-00008261
Case 19-CA-32431
- 1 1 -
Charleston.
we've had a labor negotiation with the IAN. ... And
- because of the stoppages versus the cost and the risk of
certainly is the right one for us to make. 4
Once again, a Boeing CEO grossly exaggerated the burden of
NLRB-FOIA-00008262
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -
ACTION
employees, on its intranet site, in the media, and in talks
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00008263
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
problems.
and a violation of Section 8(a)(3) based upon Boeing's
unit work to a facility not
about Boeing's decision to of
NLRB-FOIA-00008264
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -
beyond his control[.]" 8 On t h e o t h e r h a n d , " t h r e a t s o f
at some future time. 8 Faced with a union organizing drive,
supplier strategy." 5 The employer stated that it had
employment. 10 And the employer conveyed the message that the
planned to introduce. 11 The Board concluded that although the
activity. D12
See NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969).
Ibid.
Id. at 619 (citation omitted).
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
See id. at 520.
18
See id. at 520-21.
11
See id. at 521.
12
See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00008265
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
date." 13
because of the exercise of Section 7 rights. 14 T h u s , t e l l i n g
violates Section 8(a)(1). 15 Similarly, in Kroger Co., the
unlawful threats. 17 Rather, an employer's predictions, of
customer disaffection must be based on objective facts. 18
13
See id. at 522, fn. 6.
mem. 50 F.3d 1037

(11th
Cir. 1995); General Electric Co., 321
1997).
15 Aelco Corp., 326 NLRB 1262, 1265 (1998). See also Dorsey
Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB 835, 851 (1999), enfd. in pertinent
part 233 F.3d 831 (4 th Cir. 2000) (threat to close the plant if
16 311 NLRB at 1200. See also General Electric Co., 321 NLRB
unionized).
18
Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00008266
Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -
contingency plans in the event of a strike. 19 A n e m p l o y e r m a y
to predicting "unavoidable consequences. "20
testifies. 21 By contrast, reporter summaries cannot form the
Sound." 22 His comments were indistinguishable from the
19
See id. 339 NLRB at 1137.
consequences").
20
22
These same comments were quoted in the S e a ttle T im e s.
23
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00008267
Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -
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
strikes 25
activity. 26
II. The Employer Violated Section 8(a)(3)
Sound employeds with consequent adverse effects. Instead of
The Region should insure that this message was communicated
to employees.
24
The authors of these articles will need to testify. If
25
NLRB-FOIA-00008268
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -
implemented.

27 I n
retaliatory motive 28
impact on unit employees. 29 In Adair Standish Corp., the
new work from S t a n d i s h " a n d t h e r e f o r e v i o l a t e d S e c t i o n 8 ( a ) ( 3 )
employees. 90 Similarly, in Cold Heading Co., the employer
27
See 355 NLRB No. 197, slip op. at 5, fn. 8 (2010).
28
Ibid.
See Adair Standish Corp., 290 NLRB 317, 318-19 (1988), enfd
in pertinent part 912 F.2d 854 (6

t11 Cir. 1990).
29
30 See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00008269
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
Section 8(a)(3) 'violation.
meaning of Section 8(a)(3). 32 This applies to employer
strike in the future. 34 Indeed, the Board recently reaffirmed
future protected activity. 35 Comparing such conduct to the
31 See 332 NLRB 956, fn. 5, 975-76 (2000). See also
32
Capehorn Industry, 336 NLRB 364, 365 (2001).
See id. at 365-67 (employer violated Section 8(a)(3) by
33
NLRB-FOIA-00008270
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
activity.""
strike. 38 Specifically, the Court found that the use of a
36
37
380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38
See id. at 283-85.
39
See id. at 284.
40
See ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00008271
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
proscribed by Section 8(a) (3) and the employer's business
substantial "42
demonstrates that Boeing's action 6 were retaliatory and not a
Airplanes CEO Albaugh conceded that going to South Carolina, .
striking.
destructive of employee interests." 43 Conduct is "inherently
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
41
42
See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
See NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26, 33
43
NLRB-FOIA-00008272
Case 19-CA-32431
-.22 -
intent.'" 44 In International Paper Co., the Board set forth
employee rights . 47
44
2 2 8 , 2 3 1 ( 1 9 6 3 ) . S e e a l s o Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 3 2 7 N L R B
8 3 5 , 8 6 3 64
(1999), enf. denied in pertinent part 233 F.3d 831
(4th Cir. 2000).
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
45
46
Id. at 1273 (finding no justification for employer's

47
NLRB-FOIA-00008273
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -
accompanied by official' comments on the intranet and in the
with the union. 48 The Board found that the employer's stated
increase because employees chose union representation."
South Carolina employees did not. Accordingly, Boeing's
Section 8(a)(3).
48
48
NLRB-FOIA-00008274
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
A.
the employer's decision. 52 Applying the Dubuque test, the
unit jobs. 54 For example, in Quickway Transportation, Inc.,
50
Provena St. Joseph Medical Center, 350 NLRB 808 (2007).
52
Ibid.
See, e.g., Titan Tire Corp., 333 NLRB 1156, 1164-65 (2001)
53
See, e.g., Overnite Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 1275, 1276
employees").
54
NLRB-FOIA-00008275
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
bargaining unit." 55 Likewise, in Spurlino Materials, LLC, the
an expanded unit. 58 And in Dorsey Trailers, Inc., the Board
jobs. 57
methods or its products. 58 Boeing did not demonstrate that
See 355 NLRB No. 140 (2010), incorporating by reference the
55
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
See 321 NLRB 616, 617 (1996), enf. denied in relevant part
NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
57
58
See 321 NLRB at 617.
59
See Owens-Brockway Plastic Products, 311 NLRB at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00008276
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
where to locate the second 787 line was a mandatory subject of
bargaining.
term of a collective-bargaining agreement." The Board will
bargaining history; and (3) the parties' past practice.

62

63
contractual management-rights clause expressly reserved to '
independent contractor's to perform any of the Employer's
This
'
operations or phases thereof (subcontracting)

1 / 6 4
60
61
See id. at 812, fn. 19.
62
See Johnson Bateman Co., 295 NLRB 180, 184

89 (1989) (no
S e e , e . g . , Ingham Regional Medical Center, 342 NLRB 1259,
63
64
See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00008277
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
subject to arbitration." Although another contractual
would cause unit employees to be laid off, the words . "discuss"
contract."
right to of
work to a facility not covered by the
of
decision.
hold that a contractual waiver is no defense to a Section'
8(a)(3) violation."
65
Id. at 1260.
66
Id. at 1 2 6 2 .
67
See Allison Corp., 330 NLRB at 1365.
(USA) Mineral Sands, Inc. v. NLRB, 281 F.3d 442, 450

(4 th Cir.
2002) (enforcing Board decision finding Section 8(a)(3)
68
NLRB-FOIA-00008278
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -
traditional Section 8(a)(5) bargaining obligations." Absent
IV. T h e A p p r o p r i a t e R e m e d y
D e c e m b e r , e v e n t h o u g h n o unit work would be relocated before
reopener, and employer violated Section 8(a) (5) by
70

71
NLRB-FOIA-00008279
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
7 2 See, e.g., Homer D. Bronson Co., 349 NLRB 512, 515 (2007),
L o g i s t i c s & Op e r a t i o n s ,
340 NLRB 255, 258 (2003), affd. 400
the Act").
7 3 Three Sisters Sportswear Co., 312 NLRB 853, 853 (1993),
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00008280
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.J.K.
ROFs - 9
H:ADV.19-CA-3'2431.Response2.Boeingdlw

74
NLRB-FOIA-00008281
J M ic h a e l L u ttig
x P o itiv e V Ice F 'N siclen i &
G criera. C
o L si
'h f.
'or
N
C h
C o m r4 ,
:-)rstr.l,M `.;
6 0 C `14';1 5 11)
11:":77
M ay 3.2011
A riZ IFIY I/4 0
L afe E .Solom on,E squire
W ashington.D .C .20570-0001
D ear M r.Solom on .
statem ents attributed to you in the N ew York Tim es on A pril 23--about B oeing's
decision to place its new 787 final assem bly line in South C arolina.A num ber of
these statem ents,w hich arc critical to your case against B oeing.fundam entally
the C om pany.Y ou have a responsibility to correct these m isquotations and
m ischaracterizations,for the public record and also for purposes of the com plaint you
have tiled.T hrough these m isquotations and m ischaraeterizations,you have done a
grave disservice to T he B oeing C om pany.its executives and shareholders,and to the
160,000 B oerne em ployees w orldw ide.A nd,of course.you have filed a com plaint
Your Statem ent T hatB oeing "T ransfiuT ed" linion W ork
A s an initial m atter,repeated statem ents in the com plaint allege that B oeing
"rem oved w ork" from Puget Sound (16),"decided to transfer its second 787
D ream liner production line" to South C arolina (1i7(0).and -decided to tran.s-li,r a
sourcing supply program " to S outh C arolina (11,8(0 ). Y o u r A p ril 2 0 p res release
m akes the sam e assertion: "T he N L .R B launched an in N .estigation of the transfer of
second line w ork in response to charges filed by the M achinists union and 1bund
A s you w ell know ,no w ork none at all w as "rem oved" or "transferred"
did not previously exist in Puget Sound or elsew here,the second assem bly line could
not have been "rem oved" from ."transferred" or otherw ise -m oved" to South
C arolina.Sim ply put.the w ork that is and w ill be done at our C harleston,South
C arolina final assem bly facility is new w ork,required and added in response to the
historic custom er dem and for the 787.N o m em ber of the International A ssociation of
M achinists'union (1A M ) in Puget Sound has lost his or her job.or otherw ise suffered
NLRB-FOIA-00008282
any adverse em ploym entaction,as a resultof the placem entof this new w ork in the
Y our ow n R egionalD irector,w hose office you have tasked w ith prosecuting
differently than you.A s the Seattle T im es reported last year,"R ichard A beam .the
N L R B regionaldirector investigating the com plaint,said itw ould have been an easier
than placing new w ork in C harleston." D om inic G ates. M a ch in ists F ile U n fa ir L a b o r
C harge A gainst B oeing over C harleston. Seattle T im es.June 4,2010.
Since no actualw ork w as "transfen ed." itnow appears thatN L R B officials
arc already,via public statem ents.transform ing the theory of the com plaintto say
that,because B oeing com m itted to the State of W ashington thatitw ould build allof
the C om pany's 787s in thatstate,the building of airplanes in South C arolina
spokesw om an,N ancy C leeland,apparently told a new s organization that"the charge
thatB oeing is transferring w ork aw ay from union em ployees stem s from the
com pany's originalcom m itm ent`to the State of W ashington thatitw ould build the
D ream liner airplanes in this state.'
T he prem ise underlying thatassertion thatB oeing com m itted to the State of
W ashington to build allof the C om pany's 787s in W ashington- -is false.B oeing did
notcom m itto the State of W ashington thatitw ould build allof its 787s in thatstate.
B om a honored ----and fully allof its contractualcom m itm ents to the State of
in South C arolina.T he notion thatB oeing had som ehow com m itted to W ashington
State to build all787s in thatstate is neither m entioned nor even suggested either in
the IA M 's charge or in your recently tiled com plaint,and you never asserted that
B oeing had m ade such contractualcom m itm ents to the State of W ashington in the
severaldiscussions w e have had w ith you in the m onths preceding your filing of the
com plaint.H ad you done so.w e w ould have explained to you w hy such an
understanding w as plainly incorrect.I callupon you to quickly and fully correct the
record on this point.In addition to being w holly uninform ed,it creates the
im pression thatyou and your office are now in search of a theory thatw illsupporta
predeterm ined outcom e,even a theory thathas nothing to do w ith the N ationalL abor
R elations A ct.
Your Statem entThatB oeing SoughtTo "Punish" U nion E m ployees
M ischaracterizing w hatB oeing did by calling ita "transfer" of w ork,or
suggesting thatB oeing broke com m itm ents to the State of W ashington,is had
concerning the m otives and intent of B oeing's leaders specitically,thatsenior
B oeing executives soughtto "punish" union em ployees and to "threaten" them for
NLRB-FOIA-00008283
their pastand possible future strikes,through the C om pany's statem ents and its
location of the second finalassem bly line in South C arolina.
T he N evi Y o rk lim e s quotes you as saying thatB oeing "had a co n siste n t
m essage that [the C om pany and its E xecutives] w ere doing this to p u n ish their
G reenhouse, L a b o r B o w d C a se A g a in st B o e in g P o in ts to F ig h ts to (.o m e . N ew Y ork
T im es,A pril 23,2010.em phasis added.) N either your com plaint nor the post-hoc
statem ents you and other officials of the N L R B have m ade since the filing of the
com plaintoffers a single B oeing statem ent letalone a "consistentm essage"- -that
B oeing acted to "punish" its em ployees,and,needless to say.you offer no evidence
of this in your nationalm edia interview either.
T he com plaintalleges thatB oeing C om m ercialA irplanes C E O Jim A lbaugh
stated thatB oeing "decided to locate its 787 D ream liner second line in South
C arolina because of pastU nitstrikes,and threatened the loss of future U nitw ork
opportunities because of such strikes." (C om plaint 456(e).) T he com plaintcites a
M arch 2,2010 interview of M r.A lhaugh by the Seattle T im es,hutdoes notpurportto
be quoting any particular statem ent.the N L R B 's w ebsite,how eA er.offers a "fact
sheet" thatquotes M r.A lbaugh as saying:"T he overriding factor [in transferring the
line] w as not the business clim ate.A nd it w as not the w ages w e're paying today.It
w as thatw e cannotatibrd to have a w ork stoppage,you know ,every three years."
http-2 .91t11.c,fox node 4 4 :
Itw ould.of course.have been entire!) perm issible under existing law tbr M r.
A lbaugh to have m ade a statem entthatthe C om pany considered the econom ic costs
thatitw as the sole reason for such decision.B utM r.A lbautzh did noteven say either
of these things.M r.A lbaugh's fullstatem ent w as as follow s:
W ellI think you can probably say thataboutallthe states in the country right
notthe business clim ate and itw as notthe w ages w e're paying people today.
Itw as thatw e can'tafT hrd to have a w ork stoppage every three years.
W e
ca n 't a ffo rd to co n tin u e th e ra te o f e w a la tio n o f w a g e s a s w e h a ve in th e pam
Y o u kn o w , th o se a re th e o ve r, id in g flicto rs. A n d m y b ia s t.la s to sta y h e re b u t
w e co u ld n o t g e t th o se ti o issu e s d o n e d e sp ite th e b e st d ib ris o f th e U n io n
a n d th e b e st e ffo rts g ith e co m p a n y.
T he italicized sentences -- w hich w ere deliberately om itted from your office's
presentation of this quotation on its w ebsite--m ake clear that M r.A lbaugh w as
NLRB-FOIA-00008284
M o reo v er, n o reaso n ab le read er o f M r. A lb au g h 's in terv iew w o u ld d ep ict it as
p art o f a "co n sisten t m essag e" th at B o ein g so u g h t to "p u n ish " its u n io n em p lo y ees.
M r. A lb au g h ex p resses h is "b ias" in fav o r o f P u g et S o u n d an d lau d s th e g o o d -faith
effo rts o f b o th sid es. H e ex p lain s th at th e co m p an y 's p referen ce w as to lo cate th e
n ew p ro d u ctio n lin e in P u g et S o u n d an d th at b o th th e co m p an y an d th e u n io n m ad e
g o o d -faith effo rts to acco m p lish th at sh ared o b jectiv e. T h u s, w h en n o t m isq u o ted . it
is n o t ev en arg u ab le th at M r. A lb au g h 's statem en t co n stitu tes a "m essag e" o f
T h e co m p lain t's attem p t to d ep ict a statem en t b y Jim M cN ern ey , B o ein g 's
C h airm an an d C h ief E x ecu tiv e O fficer, as a th reat to p u n ish u n io n em p lo y ees is b u t
an o th er ex am p le o f m isch aracterizatio n . T h e co m p lain t alleg es th at M r. M cN ern ey
"m ad e an ex ten d ed statem en t reg ard in g 'd iv ersify in g [B o ein g 's] lab o r p o o l an d lab o r
relatio n sh ip ,'an d m o v in g th e 7 8 7 D ream lin er w o rk to S o u th C aro lin a due to 'strik es
happ en ing every three to fo ur y ears in P ug et S ound . (C o m p lain t !6 (a) (em p h asis
added).)
H e d id n o t say th at at all. T h e alleg atio n is a sleig h t-o f-h an d in tw o o b v io u s
resp ects, acco m p lish ed b y th e selectiv e m isq u o tatio n o f M r. M cN em ey 's actu al
statem en ts. F irst, M r. M cN ern ey as not m aking an "extended statem ent" about w hy
B o ein g selected C h arlesto n . H e w as resp o n d in g to a rep o rter's q u estio n ab o u t th e
co st o f p o ten tially lo catin g a n ew assem b ly lin e in C h arlesto n . A n d in fact, th e
d ecisio n to lo cate th e n ew fin al assem b ly lin e in S o u th C aro lin a h ad n o t ev en b een
m ad e at th e tim e M r. M cN ern ey 's statem en ts w ere m ad e. S eco n d , M r. M cN ern ey
an sw ered o n ly th e q u estio n as to co m p arativ e co sts th at w as ask ed . T h u s, in th e
passages you m isquote and m ischaracterize, he discussed the relative costs of a new
facility in a lo cation other than P uget S ou nd, versus the p otential costs associated
w ith "strik es h ap p en in g ev ery th ree to tb u r y ears in P u g et S o u n d ." H e d id n o t say . as
y o u alleg e th ro u g h th e co m p lain t's m isq u o tatio n . th at B o ein g selected C h arlesto n
"d u e to " strik es.
A n d M r. M cN erney did n ot even rem otely sug gest that w h at w ou ld later turn
o ut to be the d ecisio n to op en a new lin e in C h arleston w as in re ta lia tio n fo r such
strik es, as y o u w o u ld h av e to estab lish to o b tain th e rem ed ies y o u seek in y o u r
co m p lain t. H e d id n o t say , h e d id n o t su g g est. an d h e d id n o t im p ly in an y resp ect
th at B o ein g in ten d ed to p u n ish u n io n em p lo y ees o r th at a d ecisio n to lo cate a n ew
facility o th er th an in P u g et S o u n d w o u ld o r m ig h t b e m ad e to p u n ish th e u n io n fo r
p ast strik es o r b ecau se o f th eir p o w er to strik e in th e fu tu re. N eith er d id h e say .
suggest, or im ply that any existing union w ork w as being transferred to C harleston.
H is an sw er can n o t b e cited in su p p o rt o f th e leg al th eo ries in th e co m p lain t, m u ch less
the sw eeping statem ent you m ade to the N ew Y ork T im es ab o u t B o ein g 's "co n sisten t
m essag e" th at B o ein g arid its ex ecu tiv es so u g h t to "p u n ish " th e C o m p an y 's u n io n
em ployees.
F in ally , M r. M cN ern ey 's an sw er to a rep o rter's q u estio n w as not "posted on
B o ein g 's in tran et w eb site fo r all em p lo y ees," m u ch less p o sted tb r th e p u rp o se o f
NLRB-FOIA-00008285
sending an illegalm essage under the N L R A .as the com plaintincorrectly and
N or do any of the other few statem ents you reference in your com plaint- --
w hich I attach to this letter rem otely suggestan intentto "punish" the C om pany's
unionized em ployees.Q uite the contrary: these statem ents show ,at m ost,that the
C om pany considered (am ong m ultiple other factors) the risk and potentialcosts of
future strikes in deciding w here to locate its new finalassem bly facility.1 hose have
been deem ed pem iissible considerations by an unbroken line of Suprem e C ourtand
N L R L 3 precedentfor 45 years.N otonly that,but,as you know .B oeing reached outto
the IA M in an effortto secure a long-term agreem entthatw ould have resulted in
placing the second line in PugetSound.A lthough those negotiations w ere not
successful,thateftbrtalone defeats your w holly unsupported claim thatB oeing
"punish" the union for paststrikes.
W hatyou said to a nationalnew spaper,thatB oeing m ade a billion-dollar
provocative allegation againstB oeing's leaders.T hose leaders are deeply
com m itted to allof the m en and w om en w ho w ork lbr the C om pany,those
represented by unions and those w ho are not.Y our statem ent im plies that B oeing's
m ostsenior executives acted outof personalspite and retribution tow ard its labor
union.as opposed to acting in the interests of the C om pany.the C om pany's
w hatsoeer.
Yo u r S tatem en t T h at B o ein g 's S tatem en ts A n d A ctio n s .W ere S o D em o n strab ly
U n law fu l T h at Yo u W ere C o m p elled T o F ile T h e C o m p lain t
"consistentm essage" thatthe C om pany intended to "punish" the union for its prior
strikes and its pow er to strike in the future,you had no choice butto issue a
com plaint.(Specifically.you said: "I can't not issue a com plaint in the face of such
over the past six m onths.In particular.it is hard to reconcile w ith w hat has been your
repeated statem entthatyou did notbelieve this w as a m atter in w hich the N L R B
should be involved and thatyou w ould take no action on the m atter if B oeing agreed
thatitw ould notlay off any 787 em ployees in PugetSound during the duration of its
collective bargaining agreem entw ith the IA M .
W e of course understand thatyou reversed your position and abandoned the
agreem entthatyou yourself soughtfrom B oeing atler your further discussions w ith
you could have proposed and then agreed to such a resolution if,as Y ou now say.you
believed thatthe statem ents and actions by B oeing and its executives w ere so
NLRB-FOIA-00008286
egregious that the law literally com pelled a com plaint by the N L R B .O f course.the
Yo u r S tatem en t T h at T h e C o m p lain t D o es N o t S eek T o C lo se C h arlesto n
Finally.there is the issue of your articulation of the rem edy soughtin this
com plaint.T he com plaintseeks an order directing B oeing to "have the [1A M )
operate [B oeing's] second line of 787 D ream liner aircraftassem bly production in the
State of W ashington." N otw ithstanding thatyou are seeking this rem edy,your office
has been atpains since tiling the com plaintto state publicly thatthis is notequivalent
to an order thatB oeing "close its operations in South C arolina."

Fact C heck.
available atw w w .nlib.um (postof A pril26,2011).W e and the public w ould be
B oeing to produce outof PugetSound the three 787s per m onth thatare planned to he
assem bled in C harleston.thatw ould of course require the production of allof the
explained repeatedly to you and your staff in our extended discussions before you
riled the com plaint.
* * * * * * *
B oeing intends to putthis pattern of m isquotations and m iseharaeterizations
before the A dm inistrative L aw Judge,and ultim ately,before the N ationalL abor
R elations B oard itself in upcom ing proceedings.M r.Solom on.1 o the extentthey
reflectm isunderstandings of the facts on your part.w e w ould expectyour prom pt
w ithdraw alof this com plaint.
qJ.114,44
Sincerely yours,
.1
.M ichael Luttig
& G eneralC ounsel
A ttachm ent
NLRB-FOIA-00008287
6(a) - Jam es M cN erney,2009 3rd Q uarter E arnings C all,O ctober 28,2009
...T here w ould be execution challenges associated w ith thatchoice [of C harleston].
B utkeep in m ind thatw e've gota pretty good-sized operation dow n in C harleston today.
B utI think having said allof that,diversifying our labor pooland labor relationship,has
som e benefits.I think the union IA M and the C om pany have had trouble figuring itout
A nd I've got to figure out a w ay to reduce that risk to the C om pany.A nd so som e of the
m odestinefficiencies,for exam ple,associated w ith a m ove to C harleston.are certainly
Sound and the very negative financialim pactof the C om pany,our balance sheetw ould
be a lot stronger today had w e not had a strike last year.O ur custom ers w ould he a lot
happier today,had w e not had a strike last year.A nd the 787 program w ould be in better
shape had w e not.A nd so I don't blam e -- I don't blam e this totally on the union.W e
labor base.
6(b) - 787 Second L ine Q uestions and A nsw ers," 10128/09
Q 3: W as one site a higher cost than the other?
A : A ll things taken into account,this decision w ill provide econom ic advantages by
hostof factors,from naturaldisasters to hom eland security issues and w ork stoppages.
W e're electing notto getinto how individualsites fared in specific areas of the
evaluation.
* * * * * * * *
Q 8: W e understand you w ere pushing the union for a no-strike agreem ent and cam e
close to getting a 10-year deal.O bviously you didn't reach an agreem ent.W as that the
A :
It w as an im portant part of our discussion w ith the union,but it w asn't the only
factor in our decision.In the final analysis,this cam e dow n to ensuring our long-term
production disruptions thatcan occur for a variety of reasons,from naturaldisasters.to
hom eland security threats,to w ork stoppages.W hile w e didn'treach a long-terni
agreem ent,w e feltour discussions w ith the IA M w ere productive and fecused on the
NLRB-FOIA-00008288
* * * * * * * *
Q 26:Y ou say thathaving a second line in C harleston reduces risk,butif the lA M goes
on strike in the Puget Sound again they w ill haltyour production lines.W hat does a
"R epeated labor disruptions have affected our perlbnnance in our custom ers'eyes,"
here," he added.
* * * * * * * *
R ay C onner,vice presidentand generalm anager of supply-chain m anagem entand
operations,senta m essage M onday intbrm ing allB oeing C om m ercialA irplanes
up fully operational coproduction by 2012," C onner's m essage said.
disclosed extensive plans for other buildings at the facility.A m ong these is a "fin and
rudder shop," w hich suggests the tailfin m ay be builtatB oeing C harleston.
B ut Proulx said,"It's too soon to say w hat w ill go w here."
NLRB-FOIA-00008289
to shitito a planned rolloutof 10 planes a m onth by the end of 2013.
* * * * * * * *
"W e inform ed the (1A M ) of our plans to begin dualsourcing during the com pany/union
* * * * * * * *
value."
"W e'llreview supplier expertise,and w e'll ensure thatthe right levelof training and
oversightis in place to m ake sure the perform ance standards are m et." he said.
"W e are notm oving any w ork thatB oeing em ployees are currently perform ing --- w e are
6(d)
PugetSound B usiness Journal A rticle,D ecem ber 8,2009
reliable supplier to our custom ers." he said in the m em o.
*******
contracted outor done by B oeing itself atthe new South C arolina site.or elsew here in the
country.
this region.
"T here w ill be no jobs lost as part of this m ove.T heie are no plans to take this w ork
aw ay," he said.
NLRB-FOIA-00008290
the econom y being w hatitis.B utagain,the overriding factor w as notthe business
clim ate and it w as not the w ages w e're paying people today.It w as that w e can't aflbrd
to have a w ork stoppage every three years.W e can't afford to continue the rate of
efforts of the U nion and the bestefforts of the com pany.
NLRB-FOIA-00008291
'.
1r
'
Pag e 1 o f 2
F rom :
A hearn, R ichard L .
S en t:
T u esd ay , M ay 0 3 , 2 0 1 1 3 :2 3 PM
T o:
K earney, B arry J.
S u b ject:
F W : question for daily story
A ttach m en ts: B A I11235.pdf
F ro m : C leeland, N ancy
S en t: T u esday , M ay 03 , 20 11 1 2:18 PM
T o : A hearn, R ichard L .
S u b ject: F W : question for daily story
F rom a C ongressional Q uarterly reporter, in case this sheds any light on the am endm ent
F ro m : L auren S m ith [L aurenS m ith@ cqrollcall.com ]
S en t: T u esday , M ay 03 , 20 11 3 :12 PM
T o : C leeland, N ancy
S u b ject: R E : question for daily story
H ere is a copy o f th e am en d m en t:
T hey say it "S trengthen the existing protection in the N ational L abor relations A ct of state right-to-w ork law to
en su re th at state law s can n o t b e p re-em p ted b y u n io n co n tracts o r th e N L R B . It p ro v id es n ecessary clarity to
p rev en t th e N L R B fro m m o v in g fo rw ard in th eir case ag ain st B o ein g o r attem p tin g a sim ilar strateg y ag ain st o th er
com panies. It updates the current law w ith the follow ing:
N othing in the A ct shall be construed to lim it the application of any S tate law that prohibits, or otherw ise places
restrain ts u p o n , ag reem en ts b etw een lab o r o rg an izatio n s an d em p lo y ers, o r th at req u ire th e p ay m en t o f d u es o r
fees to su ch o rg an izatio n s, a co n d itio n o f em p lo y m en t eith er b efo re o r after h irin g ."
F ro m : C leeland, N ancy [m ailto:N ancy.C leeland@ nlrb.gov]
T o : L auren S m ith
S u b ject: R E : question for daily story
H i L auren,
I realize I w as m istaken. I'd gotten the idea that this w as a national right to w ork bill from another reporter; it
turns out that's not w hat this is. W e're trying to figure out exactly w hat it w ould do.
F ro m : L auren S m ith [L aurenS m ith@ cqrollcall.com ]
S u b ject: question for daily story
5/3/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008292
Page 2 of 2
H ey N ancy -- T hanks for helping m e out w ith this. I really appreciate it!
F or the daily story about S ens. A lexander and G raham 's right-to-w ork legislation,I'd love to get a com m ent on the
ram ifications of the language,both for labor and for the N LR B . S om ething sim ilar to w hat w e talked about over
the phone: T hat this is an attem pt to m andate allstates adopt right-to-w ork policies. T hat this legislation is really
nothing new and has been introduced by the G O P m any tim es before.
T o give you a better sense of w hat I'm looking into for m y feature story: I'm w riting about the naturaloscillation of
the board and it's pro-union vs. pro-business decisions depending on w hich party is controlling the W hite H ouse.
M y argum ent is that the B oeing case provides am m unition to those that are trying to prove the N LR B has an
activist agenda,but in reality,the N LR B under O bam a is no m ore pro-union than it w as pro-business under the
previous B ush adm inistration. T he N LR B is also under m uch greater scrutiny on the w hole due to the larger labor
environm ent. I w ould love to get a com m ent about the naturalprogression of the board becom ing politicized,and
how it's historically seesaw ed betw een pro-union and pro-business decisions based on the adm inistration.
T hanks so m uch and please let m e know if you have any questions! I'm on m y celltoday: 617-633-0425
B est,
Lauren
Lauren S m ith
S taff W riter
Ism ithO lcq.com
(o): 202-650-6604 **p lease n ote n ew n u m b er!
(m ): 617-633-0425
C ongressionalQ uarterly
77 K S t.,N E
n C o
t R O LL r:
C A LL
T his e-m ailm ay contain confidentialm aterialIf you are not an intended recipient,please notify the sender and delete allcopies It m ay also contain
personalview s w hich are not the view s of C Q R ollC allor its ow ner,T he E conom ist G roup W e m ay m onitor e-m ailto and from our netw ork I or
com pany inform ation go to http //legaleconom istgroup corn
5/3/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008293
0:124
5/
A A N D L A A tl % 4 4 4 -4 1 K311i
t
11A 111235
C alendar N o.
A M E N D M E N T N O .
P urpose: T o am end the N ational L abor R elations A ct and
the R ailw ay L abor A ct to clarify the applicability of
such A ct w ith respect to States that have right to w ork
law s in effect.
IN T H E
S S .
AM ENDM ENT NI3.03
By_ 41:04-N :44-
T o rea
ib t
5. 41 5
5,
R eferi
th.ggc.0)
V *:dote ra-oloonao
A M EN D M EN T intended to be proposed by M r.A LEX A N D ER
(for him selfand M r.G R A H A M )A N D D E A W I
V iz:
A t the appropriate place,insert the follow ing:
2 SEC ..PR O TEC TIO N O F R IG H T TO W O R K .
(a)A PPLIC A BILITY O F N LR A TO STA TE R IG H T TO
4 W O R K L A W S. Section 14 of the N ationalL abor R -ela-
5 tions A ct (29 U .S.C . 164) is am end ed by strikin g sub -
6 section (h) and inserting the follow ing:
"(b) N othing in this A ct shall be construed to lim it
8 the application of any State law that prohibits,or other-
9 w ise places restraints upon,agreem ents betw een labor or-
10 ganizations and em ployers that m ake m em bership in the
NLRB-FOIA-00008294
B A 111235
1 labor organization,or that require the paym ent of dues
2 or fees to such organization,a condition of em ploym ent
3 either before or after hiring.".
(b)A PPL IC A B IL IT Y O F R A IL W A Y L A B O R A C T T O
5 ST A T E R im 'T O W O R K L A W S. T itle II of the R ailw ay
6 L abor A ct (45 U .S.C .181 et seq.) is am ended by adding
7 at the end the follow ing:
8
"SEC.209.EFFECT O N STATE RIG H T TO W O RK LAW S.
"N othing in this A ct shall be construed to lim it the
10 application of any State law that prohibits,or otherw ise
11 places restraints upon,agreem ents betw een labor organi-
12 zations and carriers that m ake m em bership in the labor
13 organization,or that require the paym ent of dues or fees
14 to such organization,a condition of em ploym ent either be-
15 fore or after hiring.".
NLRB-FOIA-00008295
S.L.C.
B A I11235
C alendar N o.
A M E N D M E N T N O .
Purpose: T o am end the N ational L abor R elations A ct and
the R ailw ay L abor A ct to clarify the applicability of
such A ct w ith respect to S tates that have right to w ork
law s in effect.
IN T H E S E N A T E O F T H E U N IT E D S T A T E S -112th C on g., 1st S ess.
S.493
T o reauthorize and im prove the S B IR and ST T R program s,
and for other purposes.
and
R eferred to the C om m ittee on
ordered to be printed
O rdered to lie on the table and to be printed
A M EN D M EN T intended to be proposed by M r.A LEX A N D ER
(for him self and M r.G R A ium )
V iz:
A t the appropriate place,insert the follow ing:
2
S E C . . P R O T E C T IO N O F R IG H T T O W O R K .
(a) A PPLIC A B ILITY O F N LR A
STA TE R IG H T TO
4 W O R K L A W S . S ection 14 of the N ational L abor R ela-
5 tions A ct (29 U .S .C . 164) is am ended by striking sub-
6 section (b) and inserting the follow ing:
"(b) N othing in this A ct shall be construed to lim it
8 the application of any S tate law that prohibits, or other-
9 w ise places restraints upon, agreem ents betw een labor or-
10 ganizations and em ployers that m ake m em bership in the
NLRB-FOIA-00008296
,
i
BAI11235
S.L.C.
1 labor organization, , or that require the paym ent of dues
2 or fees to such organization, a condition of em ploym ent
3 either before or after hiring.".
(b) A PPL IC A B IL IT Y O F R A IL W A Y L A B O R A C T T O
5 ST A T E R IG H T T O W O R K L A W S. T itle II of the R ailw ay
6 L abor A ct (45 U .S .C . 181 et seq.) is am ended by adding
7 at the end the follow ing:
8
"SE C .209.E FFE C T O N ST A T E R IG H T T O W O R K L A W S.
"N othing in this A ct shall be construed to lim it the
10 application of any S tate law that prohibits, or otherw ise
11 places restraints upon, agreem ents betw een labor organi-
12 zations and carriers that m ake m em bership in the labor
13 organization, or that require the paym ent of dues or fees
14 to such organization, a condition of em ploym ent either be-
15 fore or after hiring.".
NLRB-FOIA-00008297
U N IT E D ST A T E S D IST R IC T C O U R T
F O R T H E D IST R IC T O F SO U T H C A R O L IN A
C H A R L E ST O N D IV ISIO N
IN T E R N A T IO N A L A SSO CIA T IO N O F
M A CH IN IST S A N D A E R O SPA CE
W O R K E R S and SO U T H CA R O L IN A
A M E R ICA N FE D E R A T IO N O F L A B O R
A N D CO N G R E SS O F IN D U ST R IA L
O R G A N IZ A TIO N S,
C IV IL A C T IO N N O .
C O M P L A IN T
Plaintiffs,
V .
N IM R A TA "N IICK I" H A LEY in her official
capacity as G O V E R N O R O F SO U TH
CA R O L IN A ,CA T H E R IN E T E M PL E T O N in
her officialcapacity as D IR E CTO R O F T H E
SO U T H CA R O L IN A D E PA R T M E N T O F
L A B O R ,L ICE N SIN G A N D R E G U L A T IO N ,
D efendants.
N A T U R E O F T H E CA SE
1.
T his suit challenges actions by the G overnor of South Carolina and the D irector
ofthe South Carolina D epartm entofLabor,Licensing and R egulation ("LLR ")w hich violate the
First and Fourteenth A m endm ents to the U nited States Constitution and the N ationalL abor
R elations A ct,29 U .S.C. 151-169 ("N L R A ").T he causes of action are brought pursuant to 42
U .S.C. 1983.
2.
D efendants G overnor and D irector have declared and are m aintaining a state
policy of opposing w orkers' advocacy of and association in unions,and a state policy of
opposing the advocacy and associationalactivity of unions w ithin the state of South Carolina.
The G overnor and D irector are pursuing this policy by unlaw fully utilizing "increased regulatory
scrutiny" ofunion activities and threats to im m ediately activate the "punitive m achinery" ofstate
NLRB-FOIA-00008298
governm entagainstunions and againstem ployees w ho w ish to join or w ho advocate in favor of
unions.
See,B lankenship v.M anchin,
471 F.3d 523 (4th Cir.2006).A dditionally D efendants
declared,and are m aintaining and enforcing,the stated policy in retaliation for the activities of
Plaintiffs,Plaintiffs'm em bers and their potential'm em bers in violation of the First and
Fourteenth A m endm ents to the U nited States Constitution.
3.
Plaintiffs seek a declaration ofrights pursuantto 28 U .S.C. 2201 and 2202 and
injunctive relief.
PA R T IE S.JU R ISD ICT IO N A N D V E N U E
4.
Plaintiff InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers
("IA M A W ")is a labor organization headquartered in the State ofM aryland.PlaintiffIA M A W
is organized into seven territories.South Carolina is one offourteen states in the IA M A W 's
Southern T erritory,in w hich territory the U nion represents nearly 100,000 m em bers in 21
D istrictL odges and 200 L ocalL odges.A talltim es referred to herein,PlaintiffIA M A W w as
engaged in organizing and representationalunion activities w ithin the state ofSouth Carolina.
5.
PlaintiffSouth Carolina A m erican Federation ofLabor and Congress ofIndustrial
O rganizations ("South Carolina A FL -CIO ")is a state labor federation located in the State of
South Carolina and is chartered by the A m erican Federation ofLabor and Congress ofIndustrial
O rganizations.T he South Carolina A FL -CIO acts on behalf of m em bers of affiliated unions
through legislative and politicaladvocacy and assists its m em bers and the labor m ovem entin
organizing activities.
6.
D efendantN im rata "N ikki" H aley is the G overnor ofthe State ofSouth Carolina.
D uring the tim e period N ovem ber 2,2010,through m id-day January 12,2011,D efendantH aley
w as G overnor-elect of the State of South Carolina.She w as a m em ber of the South Carolina
NLRB-FOIA-00008299
H ouse of R epresentatives from 2005 through N ovem ber 16,2010.A llactions by D efendant
H aley alleged herein w ere under color of state law for purposes of 42 U .S.C. 1983.
7.
D efendantCatherine Tem pleton is the D irector ofthe South Carolina D epartm ent
of L L R .A llactions by D efendant T em pleton alleged herein w ere under color of state law for
purposes of 42 U .S.C. 1983.
8.
Plaintiffs sue D efendants H aley and T em pleton in their officialcapacities.
9.
T his C ourt has jurisdiction over this suit under 28 U .S.C . 1343(a)(3) and 28
U .S.C . 1331,in that Plaintiffs'claim s arise under the N L R A ,29 U .S.C . 151-169,and the
Firstand Fourteenth A m endm ents ofthe Constitution ofthe U nited States,enforceable through
42 U .S.C. 1983.T his Court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgm ent pursuant to 28
U .S.C. 2201 and 2202.
10.
V enue in the D istrictofSouth Carolina,Charleston D ivision,is proper pursuantto
28 U .S.C. 1391(b) and R ule 3.01 of the L ocalCivilR ules for the U .S.D istrict Court,D istrict
ofSouth Carolina.
FA CT S
11.
In its role as a labor organization and exclusive bargaining representative,the
IA M A W organizes w orkers,bargains collectively on their behalf,seeks im provem ents in the
w ages,hours and w orking conditions of its m em bers,seeks to obtain job security and seeks
redress for w orkplace violations through grievance handling and the filing of unfair labor
practices w ith the N ationalLabor R elations Board ("N LR B").
12.
(a).In the past,the 1A M A W w as the exclusive bargaining representative of
em ployees in the aerospace industry w orking w ithin the state of South C arolina,including,
specifically,em ployees at the form er V ought aerospace m anufacturing facility in N orth
NLRB-FOIA-00008300
Charleston.T he B oeing Com pany ("B oeing") fully acquired the V ought facility in July of 2009.
(b).A fter an aggressive anti-union cam paign,the IA M A W -represented w orkers voted in
Septem ber of 2009 to decertify the union at B oeing's N orth C harleston plant.T he IA M A W
continues to be active in advocating for better w orking conditions and organizing w orkers atthe
form er V ought facility and other facilities in South C arolina,including those operated by
B oeing.
13.
T he South C arolina A F L -C IO is active in advocating for w orkers in South
Carolina,for better w orking conditions and for their organizing in labor unions.Italso assists its
constituentm em bers in organizing w orkers,representing w orkers and advocating for w orkers in
South C arolina.T he South C arolina A F L -C IO actively and publicly participated in the
cam paign to retain IA M A W as the representative of w orkers at B oeing's facility in N orth
Charleston.
14.
In response to the above-described activities ofPlaintiffs,their m em bers and their
associates,defendantH aley announced and has established,m aintained and enforced the State's
policy and practice to suppress and to actively discourage and oppose w orkers'efforts to join a
union or support unions.H aley announced this state policy hostile to unions and union activity
in South C arolina because of the view points held and expressed by unions and w orkers
supporting unions through their speech and associationalactivity.'
15.
In order to carry out the State's anti-union policy announced and established by
H aley,she further announced that the stated policy w ould be carried out through the South
Carolina D epartm entofLLR .
NLRB-FOIA-00008301
16.
D efendant H aley m ade it clear that she w as threatening unions,and plaintiff
IA M A W particular,w ith hostile state action by the D epartm entofLLR ,and thatthe D epartm ent
ofLLR w ould have a large role in fighting unions,particularly atBoeing.
17.
U pon inform ation and belief,by this statem ent,D efendantH aley w as referring to
her plans to thw art any efforts by plaintiff IA M A W to organize the form erly-unionized
em ployees at the B oeing plant and new w orkers added to the plant as a result of B oeing's
developm entofa second "787" assem bly facility
18.
Further,to carry out the State's anti-union policy announced and established by
D efendant H aley,she announced that the person she w as appointing as the head of the
D epartm ent of L L R to lead these anti-union activities described above w as D efendant
T em pleton.D efendant H aley stated that she selected D efendant T em pleton to help her in
carrying out the state anti-union policy,and that she selected D efendant T em pleton to head the
.._
D epartm ent of L L R in its anti-union activities precisely because of D efendant T em pleton's
previous experience in fighting unions.D efendant H aley said D efendant T em pleton's
background m ade her w ell-suited to im plem entthe state policy offighting unions.
19.
A m ong the occasions on w hich D efendant H aley has announced this state anti-
union policy w as a press conference she held on D ecem ber 8,2010.A m ong the statem ents she
m ade in thatpress conference are the follow ing:
L L R is going to have a large role over the nextcouple ofyears,one being w ith the
unions,and thatis the factthatw e think w e are going to have a big union fight,as
w e go forw ard,w ith B oeing,and you are right now looking at the only fem ale in
the nation that has fought the largest U A W push that w e've been through,and so
she is ready for that,she is ready for the challenge,she know s w hat it takes to
take it on,and she understands that it's going to be a partnership levelthat w e
cannotlose.
***
W e are going to fight the unions,and I needed a partner to help m e do it;
[Tem pleton is]the rightperson to help m e do it.
NLRB-FOIA-00008302
20.
A ttached as E xhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the recording of D efendant
H aley's press conference to announce her choice of D efendant T em pleton for L L R w hich w as
posted on Y outube.com at http://w w w .voutube.com /w atch?v=D O X H eU T dE oU .D efendant
H aley's statem ents w ere w idely reported in the m edia.T rue and correct copies of published
articles discussing her statem ents are attached as Exhibit2.
21.
Follow ing the press conference,the D epartm ent of L L R posted a release on its
w ebsite about D efendant T em pleton.T he release touted D efendant T em pleton's "union
avoidance" experience.T he new s release posted on the State's w ebsite read in part:
T em pleton has been involved in union avoidance for the past 14 years.She has
extensive experience in nationallabor cam paigns against the U A W ,IB E W and
T eam sters.In fact,her first cam paign w as the m ostnotorious U A W cam paign in
decades.She is currently on O gletree's E FCA T eam providing extensive training
throughout the country on the E m ployee Free C hoice A ct.In addition to her
experience w ith the larger and older labor unions,she has specific know ledge
aboutthe various labor organizations actively targeting the healthcare industry.
22.
A s soon as D efendant H aley w as sw orn in as G overnor,she m oved to enforce the
state policy she had announced and established by nom inating D efendant T em pleton to be
D irector of L L R .D efendant T em pleton w as confirm ed on January 13,2011,D efendant H aley's
firstfullday in the G overnor's office.
23.
In addition to the w ebsite statem ent confirm ing that D efendant T em pleton w as
selected by D efendantH aley to help the D epartm entofLLR carry outthe G overnor's stated anti-
union policy,D efendant T em pleton on inform ation and belief also m ade statem ents at her
confirm ation hearing thatw ere consistentw ith D efendantH aley's threats againstunions.
24.
D efendants' statem ents and actions are no idle threats or m ere rhetoric.
D efendant H aley,D efendant T em pleton,and the D epartm ent of L L R have enorm ous pow er to
NLRB-FOIA-00008303
w ield the fullw eightofstate,law and the state governm entagainstplaintiffs,their m em bers and
associates.
25.
A s ChiefE xecutive ofthe State ofSouth Carolina,D efendantH aley,as G overnor,
has broad authority to im plem ent and direct state policy and law .T hat authority includes the
pow er to carry outher threats using the punitive m achinery ofthe state governm entto carry out
the anti-union and anti-w orker policy.
26.
D efendant T em pleton likew ise has broad authority to im plem ent state policy and
law .A s D irector of L L R ,she is responsible for adm inistering and enforcing the state right-to-
w ork law and num erous other state labor and em ploym entlaw s and regulations thatcan directly
or indirectly affectw orkers'choice aboutw hether to join or supporta labor union.H er authority
extends to m ajor law enforcem entfunctions including entering w ork sites,and investigating and
prosecuting claim s or violations.
27.
In light of the state policy announced and established as stated above,the
aforesaid pow ers of the D efendants and the D epartm ent of L L R are and w illbe utilized to
oppose unions,the association of w orkers in unions,and advocacy in favor of unionization.
D efendant H aley has com m itted the State to w ielding its regulatory,investigative and
enforcem ent authority against speech and associationalactivities favoring unions carried out by
w orkers and union organizers in the state ofSouth Carolina.
28.
A dditionally,D efendant H aley declared a governm entalpolicy to side w ith
em ployers,and B oeing in particular,in labor organizing cam paigns and labor disputes.
D efendant H aley declared a governm ental policy to refrain from neutrality as to labor
m anagem ent relations in the state of South Carolina.She declared a governm entalpolicy to
deliberately refuse to protectthe rights ofw orkers to join or supportunions as required by state
NLRB-FOIA-00008304
and federallaw .D efendantH aley declared and w illpursue a governm entalpolicy thatthreatens
reprisalagainstthose w ho seek to associate together in a union.T hatreprisalw illbe carried out
through
adverse governm ent action and heightened scrutiny ofthe w orkplace and oforganizing
activities by the L L R ,and other avenues of state governm entalinterference.T he declaration of
these policies hostile to w orkers'constitutionaland federalstatutory rights,as w ellas their
enforcem ent,w ould be,and is coercive and intim idating to the ordinary w orker of reasonable
firm ness and to union organizers ofreasonable firm ness.
29.
D efendant H aley's threat of an im m inent "fight" w ith the IA M A W and other
unions in South Carolina has frustrated,and w illcontinue to frustrate,efforts by the IA M A W
and the South C arolina A FL -C IO to achieve their m issions as described above,including
fulfilling the N L R A 's prom ise of "fullfreedom of association,self-organization and designation
ofrepresentatives oftheir ow n choosing." 29 U .S.C. 151.
30.
T he harm to w orkers w ho are m em bers or potentialm em bers of Plaintiffs is
extrem e.T he D efendants'actions,including the explicit and w ell-publicized threats and the
announcem entofthe reasons for T em pleton's appointm ent,w ould have,and have had a chilling
effecton constitutionally and statutorily protected speech and associationalactivity ofem ployees
ofreasonable firm ness.
31.
D efendant H aley's w idely-dissem inated declaration that she,the D epartm ent of
L L R and T em pleton w illfight the IA M A W at B oeing is a public announcem ent of state policy
that has and w illviolate the rights of em ployees at B oeing plants,and elsew here in South
Carolina,to organize,join a union,bargain collectively,and engage in other protected concerted
activity.
NLRB-FOIA-00008305
32.
D efendants'acts have also chilled the speech and associationalactivities of
m em bers and potentialm em bers and allies of Plaintiffs and other labor unions everyw here
w ithin the state of South Carolina.E m ployees of reasonable firm ness have been increasingly
reluctant to talk to and m eet w ith each other or w ith union representatives about w orking
conditions and union association.T his has proved to be the case in IA M A W 's organizing efforts
at B oeing,its organizing efforts w ith regard to em ployees of com panies other than B oeing,and
w ith South Carolina A FL -CIO m em ber-unions other than IA M A W w ho have been seeking to
m eet w ith or organize w orkers in this state.In short,D efendants' conduct has had the
foreseeable effect of creating a pervasive chillon protected activity by people of reasonable
firm ness.
32.
T he direct harm to Plaintiffs IA M A W and South C arolina A FL -C IO is also
heavy.D efendants'past and threatened future interference w ith union organizationaland
representationalactivities w illcause Plaintiffs to devote significant resources to identify and
counteract the anti-union policies and practices H aley and T em pleton have effectuated and w ill
effectuate.D efendants'conduct w illresult in a reduction in union m em bership,organizational
harm to both the IA M A W and the South C arolina A FL -C IO ,and econom ic harm to them
through a loss ofunion dues and/or other financialcontributions by w orkers.
33.
D efendants intentionally established a policy of hostility to and retaliation for the
speech and associationalactivities of the Plaintiffs,their m em bers and potentialm em bers is not
justified by any state interest.
34.
T he acts of D efendants w ere,and are,being undertaken in reckless or w illful
disregard for,and indifference to plaintiffs'and their m em bers'and potentialm em ber's rights,
privileges and im m unities protected by the N LR A and the Firstand Fourteenth A m endm ents.
NLRB-FOIA-00008306
FIR ST CL A IM FO R R E L IE F
(V iolation of 29 U .S.0 157-169)
35.
36.
Plaintiffs repeatand re-allege every allegation above as iffully setforth herein.
T he N ationalL abor R elations A ct,29 U .S.C. 151-169,regulates m ost private
sector labor-m anagem ent relations in the U nited States.Section 7 of the N L R A ,29 U .S.C.
157,guarantees the rights of em ployees to self-organization,to form ,join,or assist labor
organizations,to bargain collectively through representatives oftheir ow n choosing to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other m utualaid or
protection,and also the rightto refrain from any or allsuch activities.In Section 1 ofthe N L R A ,
29 U .S.C. 151,Congress declared the associationalrights protected by the A ct as a m atter of
nationalpolicy:
It is declared to be the policy of the U nited States to elim inate the causes of
certain substantialobstructions to the free flow of com m erce and to m itigate and
elim inate these obstructions w hen they have occurred by encouraging the practice
and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by w orkers
offullfreedom ofassociation,self-organization and designation ofrepresentatives
of their ow n choosing,for the purpose of negotiating the term s and conditions of
their em ploym entor other m utualaid or protection.
T hese federalstatutes preem pt the anti-union and anti-w orker policy established by D efendants
described above.
37.
In addition to those N L R A rights explicitly set forth in Section 7,the N L R A also
protects em ployee and em ployer rights to resort to peacefulm eans of pressure on each other to
facilitate collective bargaining free of governm entalregulation and interference.D efendants'
actions threaten the IA M A W ,the South Carolina A FL-CIO and its affiliates,and union m em bers
and potentialm em bers by inform ing them thatD efendants w illuse their public offices and state
resources,under color of state law ,to take hostile governm entalaction and heightened scrutiny
10
NLRB-FOIA-00008307
of em ployees'activities by the L L R to interfere w ith rights expressly and im plicitly conferred
upon w orkers by the N LR A .
38.
B y publicly declaring the State of South C arolina's policy and plan to oppose
w orkers'efforts to organize unions and to advocate for better term s and conditions of w ork in
association w ith other w orkers,and by appointing T em pleton as the L L R D irector to help her
"fight the unions," D efendants H aley and T em pleton are acting under color of state law to
interfere w ith rights of unions,union m em bers and potentialunion m em bers guaranteed by the
N LR A .This declared policy to "fightunions" is preem pted by the N LR A .
39.
D efendants'disregard for Plaintiffs'and Plaintiffs'm em bers'rights as set forth
above occurred under color of state law and has caused and is causing the Plaintiffs and their
m em bers and potentialm em bers to be deprived of their rights,privileges and im m unities secured
by the N LR A .
SE CO N D CL A IM FO R R E L IE F
(V iolation of First A m endm ent of the.U .S.Constitution Free Speech and A ssociation)
40.
Plaintiffs repeatand re-allege every allegation above as if fully setforth herein.
41.
Em ployees and their associations enjoy protection from state infringem entof their
FirstA m endm entrights to associate for m utualaid and protection and to prom ote unionization,
self-organization and designation of a collective bargaining representative.
42.
A ttendance and discussion atm eetings,speeches,and discussions am ong w orkers
aboutthe advantages and disadvantages of form ing or joining a labor organization are allform s
of association and speech entitled to protection .under the Firstand Fourteenth A m endm ents of
the U .S.C onstitution.
43.
D efendants'threats and announced state policy to subjectto heightened scrutiny
speech and association activities thatfavor unions is threatening,coercive and intim idating to
11
NLRB-FOIA-00008308
union leaders and organizers,and to represented and non-represented w orkers,including those
em ployed by B oeing,w ho w ish to associate together as a union and w ho w ish to advocate for
better w orking conditions through association w ith other w orkers.
44.
D efendants'conductdescribed above did,does,and w ould,chillthe free speech
and free association rights of a reasonable em ployee of ordinary firm ness,including B oeing
w orkers,w ho w ere targeted by D efendantH aley.
45.
D efendants'conduct has chilled, and w ill continue to chill, protected First
A m endm entactivity.D efendants'actions,setforth above,violated and continue to violate the
free speech and association rights guaranteed by the First A m endm ent to the U nited States
C onstitution to Plaintiffs,their m em bers and their potentialm em bers.D efendants'conducthas
chilled reasonably firm em ployees'w illingness to assert their rights to organize,to bargain
collectively,and to discuss and associate w ith one another and w ith union organizers abouttheir
term s and conditions of em ploym ent,including their interestin self-organization.
46.
D efendants'violation of the rights of Plaintiffs,Plaintiffs'm em bers and potential
m em bers protected by the FirstA m endm entoccurred under color of state law and has caused,
and is causing,the Plaintiffs and their m em bers and potentialm em bers to be deprived of their
FirstA m endm entrights of free speech and association.
T H IR D CL A IM FO R R E L IE F
(R etaliation for First A m endm ent A ctivity)
47.
48.
Plaintiffs,Plaintiffs'm em bers and potential m em bers have First A m endm ent
rights to speak in favor of unions and to associate together in unions and in supportof unions.
D efendants have retaliated againstPlaintiff IA M A W because of its representation of w orkers at
B oeing C om pany and because of its efforts to organize w orkers in South C arolina.D efendants
12
NLRB-FOIA-00008309
retaliated againstPlaintiff South C arolina A FL -C IO because of its activities in supportof its
constituentunions,including atB oeing,and because of its staunch supportfor the organizing and
collective bargaining activities of the w orkers of South C arolina.
49.
D efendants'intentionalretaliation for Plaintiffs'and Plaintiffs'm em bers'rights
as setforth above occurred and is occurring under color of state law and has caused the Plaintiffs
and their m em bers and potentialm em bers to be deprived of their liberties protected by the First
and Fourteenth A m endm ents.
FO U R T H CL A IM FO R R E L IE F
(V iolation ofFourteenth A m endm entofthe U .S.Constitution EqualProtection)
50.
51.
Plaintiffs IA M A W and South C arolina A FL-C IO are unincorporated associations
w hich concern them selves w ith w ages,hours and w orking conditions.D efendants intentionally
established a policy of hostility to and retaliation for the speech and associationalactivities of the
Plaintiffs and their m em bers because of the view pointthey espouse.O ther sim ilar associations
and businesses w hich engage in speech and associationalactivities concerning w ages,hours and
w orking conditions existin South C arolina.T hose associations and businesses have notbeen
targeted for hostile treatm entas a m atter of South C arolina's policy and practice.
52.
D efendants'disparate and adverse treatm entof Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs'm em bers
is occurring under color of state law and has caused the Plaintiffs and their m em bers and
potential m em bers to be deprived of their right to equal protection under the Fourteenth
A m endm ent.
13
NLRB-FOIA-00008310
FIFT H CL A IM FO R R E L IE F
(V iolation of Fourteenth A m endm ent of the U .S.Constitution D ue Process/L iberty)
53.
Plaintiffs repeatand re-allege every allegation above as iffully setforth herein.
54.
The Fourteenth A m endm entguarantees that"no State shall...deprive any person
oflife,liberty,or property,w ithoutdue process oflaw ." T he Fourteenth .A m endm ent's D ue
Process Clause prevents governm entofficials from abusing their pow er,or em ploying itas an
instrum entofoppression.
55.
A prim ary purpose ofthe LLR D irector's job is to enforce state labor statutes such
as the right-to-w ork law .U nder S.C.Code 41-7-75,D efendant T em pleton "shall" ensure
com pliance w ith the law .This law prohibits persons from "com pel[ling]any person to...refrain
from joining or supporting any labor organization." S.C.Code 41-7-70.This statute defines a
liberty interestofallw orkers in South Carolina.
56.
D efendants'actions alleged herein,taken under color ofstate law ,intim idate and
coerce w orkers so that they are com pelled to refrain from joining or supporting labor
organizations.These actions deny the liberty ofSouth Carolina w orkers w ithoutdue process.
D efendants'actions have and w illcontinue to deprive South Carolina w orkers oftheir liberty to
join and/or supportunions as m andated in South Carolina's R ightTo W ork A ct,S.C.Code 41-,
7-10 and 41-7-70,a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth A m endm ent to the U nited
States Constitution.
IR R E PA R A B L E H A R M
57.
A s a directand proxim ate resultofD efendants'threats and actions alleged herein,
the Plaintiffs,Plaintiffs m em bers and potentialm em bers are suffering irreparable harm in
violation oftheir Constitutionaland federalstatutory rights and w illcontinue to suffer thatharm
unless and untilgranted the reliefrequested in this Com plaint.
14
NLRB-FOIA-00008311
58.
Plaintiffs have no adequate rem edy atlaw for the violations alleged herein.
R E Q U E ST FO R R E L IE F
59.
W H ER EFO R E,Plaintiffs pray thatthis Courtaw ard the follow ing relief:
1.
A judgm ent pursuant to 28 U .S.C. 2201 and 2202 declaring that the policies,
practices and acts com plained ofherein are illegaland unconstitutional.Specifically,Plaintiffs
seek a declaration by the Courtthat:
Threats to "fightunions," the execution ofa policy hostile to free association in
unions,acts w hich subjectunions and w orkers w ho seek to associate by joining a labor
organization to heightened scrutiny ofthose organizationaland representationalactivities
through the agencies ofstate governm ent,and retaliation againstunions because oftheir
advocacy and associationalactivities and againstw orkers because oftheir supportfor
unions violate the Firstand Fourteenth A m endm ents to the U nited States Constitution,
violate the Plaintiffs'and their m em bers'and potentialm em bers'express and im plied
statutory rights under the N LR A ,and deprive the Plaintiffs and union-represented and
non-represented w orkers w ho are potentialunion m em bers ofequalprotection ofthe law ,
and ofliberty w ithoutdue process in violation ofthe Fourteenth A m endm entto the U .S.
Constitution.
2.
A n order enjoining D efendants from interfering in any m anner w ith the exercise
by Plaintiffs,their m em bers or their potentialm em bers,ofrights secured by the N LR A ,and by
the Firstand Fourteenth A m endm ents to the U nited States Constitution.
3.
A n order requiring D efendants H aley and Tem pleton to execute an undertaking in
w hich they com m it:
a.
to refrain,and to directLLR to refrain,from violating the statutory and
constitutionalrights ofw orkers in South Carolina to form ,join and assist
labor unions,and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of
m utualaid or protection;
b.
to rem ain neutral,and to directLLR to rem ain neutral,in enforcing all
state labor and em ploym entlaw s;
c.
to rem ain neutral,and to directLLR to rem ain neutral,regarding labor-
m anagem entrelations betw een em ployers,w orkers and unions w ithin the
state of South C arolina,including but not lim ited to,organizing
15.
NLRB-FOIA-00008312
cam p aign s, p etition s for certification of a u n ion , p etition s for
decertification ofa union,grievances and unfair labor practices;and
d.
4.
to rem ain neutral,and to direct L L R to rem ain neutral,regarding
collective bargaining negotiations.
A n aw ard ofcosts,including reasonable attorney's fees,pursuantto 42 U .S.C.
1988(b).
5.
O ther and further reliefas the Courtdeem s proper.
D A T E D this 20" day ofJanuary,2011.
s/Arrnand Derfner
A rm and D erfner
D erfner A ltm an & W ilborn
575 K ing Street,Ste.B (29403)
Charleston,S.C.29402
843-723-9804
843-696-7935 cell
aderfnera,daw legal.com
Christopher Corson,G eneralCounsel
InternationalA ssociation ofM achinists
& A erospace W orkers
9000 M achinists Place
U pper M arlboro,M D 20772-2687
(301) 967-4500
ccorsoncf4iam aw .org
K athleen Phair Barnard
Schw erin Cam pbellBarnard Iglitzin & Lavin LLP
18 W estM ercer Street,Ste.400
Seattle,W A 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828 (phone)
(206) 378-4132 (fax)
barnard@ workerlaw.corn
16
NLRB-FOIA-00008313
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Estep, Susan C.
Monday, August 09, 2010 8:05 PM
Kobe, James
OALIST.doc
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008314
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008315
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
non-responsive
6.
19-CA-32431
3/26/10
Boeing Company
On 7/28/10 investigative subpoena issued to appear on 8/11/10 and
present evidence.
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008316
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008317
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008318
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008319
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kobe, James
Friday, January 07, 2011 6:42 PM
Estep, Susan C.
The "yellow" highlighted entries are new !!
Cases Pending Disposition
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008
NLRB-FOIA-00008320
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008321
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008322
Non-responsive
36. 19-CA-
32811)
Boeing Company
Related to 19-CA-32431 in which Advice memo
issued on 8/31/10.
11/1/10
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008323
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008324
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008325
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008326
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008327
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kobe, James
Monday, February 07, 2011 7:20 PM
Estep, Susan C.
FINAL ENTRIES (in GREEN)
OALIST for JAn 11 jrk edited.doc
Jim Kobe
ARD, Region 19
206-220-6314
NLRB-FOIA-00008328
Cases Pending Disposition
1.
2.
3.
Non-responsive
4.
NLRB-FOIA-00008329
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
5.
Non-responsive
Page 2
NLRB-FOIA-00008330
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
6.
Non-responsive
7.
Page 3
NLRB-FOIA-00008331
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
Non-responsive
8.
9.
19-CA-32811)
Boeing Company
11/1/10
Last month: This charge involves allegations that are intimately
related to and parallel with the allegations contained in 19-CA-32431
which is currently before Advice.
Non-responsive
10.
Page 4
NLRB-FOIA-00008332
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
11.
12.
Non-responsive
13.
14.
Page 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008333
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
15.
16.
Non-responsive
17.
18.
19.
Page 6
NLRB-FOIA-00008334
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
20.
Non-responsive
21.
Page 7
NLRB-FOIA-00008335
Microsoft Outlook
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
image001.jpg
I think I caught them, thanks!
A few typos to clean up before you send to Leslie.
NLRB-FOIA-00008336
NLRB-FOIA-00008337
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Solomon, Lafe E.
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
available.
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00008338
NLRB-FOIA-00008339
Microsoft Outlook
Mattina, Celeste J.
Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Exemption 5
Sent: Tue May 10 13:56:50 2011
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
available.
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008340
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00008341
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Contee, Ernestine R.
FW : This is what I have so far, feel free to edit..
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008342
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008343
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008344
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Contee, Ernestine R.
Fw:
--------------------------
From: Garza, Jose
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Schiff, Robert
Sent: Thu May 12 17:04:47 2011
Subject: RE:
With my section.
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008345
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008346
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008347
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008348
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008349
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008350
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008351
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008352
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Monday, May 16, 2011 4:55 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Sophir, Jayme
RE:
Sylvia will get it.
To: Farrell, Ellen; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Garza, Jose
Cc: Sophir, Jayme
Subject: Re:
--------------------------
Cc: Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Mon May 16 12:44:59 2011
Subject: RE:
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: FW:
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008353
Subject: FW:
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008354
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008355
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008356
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
klineandroeresponse.doc
While Ellen was sending her edits, I was about to send mine, so I incorporated hers into this one. My edits primarily deal
with
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008357
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008358
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008359
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008360
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008361
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008362
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008363
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008364
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008365
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008366
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.
Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.
Draft Hearing Invitation Response
Lafe,
Please find attached a draft response to the Issa request to participate in the South Carolina hearing. Also, we should
gather today to talk about the meeting with Mr. Kline. I am available at your convenience.
Thank you,
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00008367
NLRB-FOIA-00008368
NLRB-FOIA-00008369
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE: with my edits
Exemption 5
do you think theyre
necessary?
Thanks!
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00008370
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008371
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008372
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
MotonBostick, Sylvia
Mattina, Celeste J.
new draft of June 10 letter
NLRB-FOIA-00008373
NLRB-FOIA-00008374
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008375
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008376
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008377
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008378
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
openingIssa (2).doc
Per our discussion.
NLRB-FOIA-00008379
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008380
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008381
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008382
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008383
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008384
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008385
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
'lbkiernan@zuckerman.com'
'Schilling, Judith M.'; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.;
Ferguson, John H.
Lafe's written statement for Boeing hearing
openingIssa615.doc
Leslie,
Attorney Client Privilege
Take care,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00008386
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008387
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008388
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008389
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008390
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008391
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008392
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008393
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Cleeland, Nancy; Mattina, Celeste J.
friendly?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222

Leslie,
Take care,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00008394
NLRB-FOIA-00008395
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008396
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008397
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008398
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008399
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008400
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008401
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Cleeland, Nancy
I made the same change here. I agree with Jen, the oral version should be lay person
friendly. Nancy, your input would be great. I will try to play with this also later this
afternoon.
friendly?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222

NLRB-FOIA-00008402
Leslie,
Take care,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00008403
NLRB-FOIA-00008404
NLRB-FOIA-00008405
NLRB-FOIA-00008406
NLRB-FOIA-00008407
NLRB-FOIA-00008408
NLRB-FOIA-00008409
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer
A...
We should have it done by tomorrow at noon, if possible.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
friendly?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222

NLRB-FOIA-00008410
Leslie,
Take care,
Jennifer
NLRB-FOIA-00008411
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kiernan, Leslie Berger [lbkiernan@zuckerman.com]
Mattina, Celeste J.
Ricci, Jane
Comments on W ritten Statement
3306913_2.DOC.doc
NLRB-FOIA-00008412
NLRB-FOIA-00008413
NLRB-FOIA-00008414
NLRB-FOIA-00008415
NLRB-FOIA-00008416
NLRB-FOIA-00008417
NLRB-FOIA-00008418
NLRB-FOIA-00008419
NLRB-FOIA-00008420
Microsoft Outlook
non-responsive
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008421
Read
Recipient
Fetterolf, Laura B.
Platt, Nancy
Read: 5/26/2010 8:03 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00008422
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008423
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008424
Microsoft Outlook
Exemption 5
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Moskowitz,
Eric G.; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: Boeing, Case 19-CA-32431 (Congressional Inquiry)
My bad; please ignore the attachment; I only intended to transmit the message below and the attachment with respect to
3 and 4. We will be meeting here re. #2 and get back to you.
Rich
a, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Moskowitz, Eric G.; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW: Boeing, Case 19-CA-32431 (Congressional Inquiry)
Set forth below are
Exemption 5
A suggested revision to points 3 and 4 will be sent shortly.
Rich
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008425
Exemption 5
P eter G . Finch, Fie ld A tto rne y
N atio n al Lab o r R e latio n s B o ard - R e gio n 1 9
2 9 4 8 Jack so n Fe d e ral B u ild in g
9 1 5 Se co n d A ve n u e
Se attle , W ash in gto n 9 8 1 7 4
T e l.: 2 0 6 .2 2 0 .6 2 85
Fax : 2 0 6 .2 2 0 .6 30 5
e -m ail: p e te r.fin ch @ n lrb .go v
NLRB-FOIA-00008426
Microsoft Outlook
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
In number 1,
Best regards,
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00008427
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008428
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008429
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008430
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008431
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008432
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008433
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008434
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ferguson, John H.
Friday, May 20, 2011 9:04 PM
Moskowitz, Eric G.; Bandini, Laura E.
our portion of letter to Congress
11 draft reply I & G 5-20.doc
If it suits you,
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thanks for pulling together all the building blocks.
NLRB-FOIA-00008435
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008436
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008437
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008438
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008439
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008440
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008441
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008442
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008443
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008444
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008445
Microsoft Outlook
non-responsive
From: Ferguson, John H.
To: Moskowitz, Eric G.; Bandini, Laura E.
Subject: our portion of letter to Congress

If it suits you,
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
. Thanks for pulling together all the building blocks.
NLRB-FOIA-00008446
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008447
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008448
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008449
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008450
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008451
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008452
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008453
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008454
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008455
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008456
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Monday, May 23, 2011 8:04 AM
Issa response
NLRB-FOIA-00008457
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008458
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008459
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008460
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008461
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008462
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008463
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008464
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Monday, May 23, 2011 12:10 PM
Simms, Abby; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Ferguson,
John H.; Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Issa response
Eric
Richard L.
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008465
Recipient
Read
Simms, Abby
Read: 5/23/2011 12:53 PM
Mattina, Celeste J.
Read: 5/23/2011 1:15 PM
Garza, Jose
Read: 5/23/2011 12:37 PM
Kearney, Barry J.
Farrell, Ellen
Read: 5/23/2011 12:23 PM
Ferguson, John H.
Read: 5/23/2011 12:27 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
Read: 5/23/2011 1:02 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00008466
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008467
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008468
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008469
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008470
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008471
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008472
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008473
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Monday, May 23, 2011 12:36 PM
Simms, Abby; Bandini, Laura E.
FW : Issa response
Newest version
Eric
L.
Eric
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00008474
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008475
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008476
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008477
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008478
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008479
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008480
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008481
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Monday, May 23, 2011 6:45 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen;
Ferguson, John H.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Simms, Abby; Bandini, Laura E.; Eskenazi, Mark G.
RE: Issa response
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008482
Read
Recipient
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Mattina, Celeste J.
Garza, Jose
Read: 5/23/2011 7:23 PM
Kearney, Barry J.
Farrell, Ellen
Ferguson, John H.
Ahearn, Richard L.
Read: 5/24/2011 9:12 AM
Simms, Abby
Bandini, Laura E.
Eskenazi, Mark G.
NLRB-FOIA-00008483
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008484
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008485
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008486
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008487
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008488
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008489
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008490
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008491
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008492
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008493
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008494
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008495
Microsoft Outlook
Mattina, Celeste J.
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ferguson, John H.; Moskowitz,
Re: Issa response
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
--------------------------
L.
Sent: Tue May 24 07:42:34 2011
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
Non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.

1
NLRB-FOIA-00008496
NLRB-FOIA-00008497
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Ferguson, John H.
RE: Issa response
Importance:
High
John: this is my reaction to Jennifers edit/addition. Please let me know what you think before I send it to
everyone
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008498
Non-responsive
Eric Moskowitz
Special Litigation Branch
1099 - 14th St., NW
202-273-2931
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008499
Nonresponsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
Tracking:
3
NLRB-FOIA-00008500
Recipient
Read
Ferguson, John H.
Read: 5/24/2011 10:56 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00008501
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ferguson,
John H.; Moskowitz, Eric G.
Pomerantz, Anne
RE: Issa response
Exemption 5
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Exemption 5
Otherwise, I think
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008502
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00008503
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Ahearn, Richard L.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme;
Pomerantz, Anne
RE: Issa response
G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
Exemption 5
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Exemption 5
Otherwise, I think
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008504
L.
Exemption 5
Well that was easy.
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00008505
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ferguson, John H.
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Issa response
11 Draft Issa Response (8) - jpg - 5-24-11.doc
Importance:
High
Eric: Here my attempt to address the issues you pointed out.
NLRB-FOIA-00008506
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008507
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008508
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008509
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008510
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008511
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008512
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008513
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Ferguson, John H.
FW : Issa response
11 Draft Issa Response (8) - jpg - 5-24-11.doc
Importance:
High
Looks good to me I made a very minor edit
non-responsive
Eric Moskowitz
1099 - 14th St., NW
202-273-2931
To: Moskowitz, Eric G.
Importance: High
Eric: Here my attempt to address the issues you pointed out.
NLRB-FOIA-00008514
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008515
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008516
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008517
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008518
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008519
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008520
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008521
Microsoft Outlook
Farrell, Ellen
Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Sophir, Jayme;
Pomerantz, Anne
RE: Issa response
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
A couple of other suggestions
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Garza, Jose
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
Exemption 5
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00008522
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Exemption 5
Otherwise, I think
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008523
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00008524
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Re
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ferguson,
John H.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: Issa response
11 Draft Issa Response (8) - jpg - 5-24-11 (3).doc
Lawsuits Against Arizona and South Dakota
section
non-responsive
Eric Moskowitz
1099 - 14th St., NW
202-273-2931
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Exemption 5
Otherwise, I think
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008525
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
Tracking:
2
NLRB-FOIA-00008526
Recipient
Read
Garza, Jose
Read: 5/24/2011 2:50 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Read: 5/24/2011 4:33 PM
Mattina, Celeste J.
Read: 5/24/2011 5:36 PM
Farrell, Ellen
Sophir, Jayme
Ferguson, John H.
Read: 5/24/2011 2:50 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
Read: 5/24/2011 2:52 PM
Kearney, Barry J.
Read: 5/24/2011 2:52 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00008527
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008528
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008529
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008530
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008531
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008532
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008533
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008534
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ferguson, John H.
Moskowitz, Eric G.
FW : Issa response
Anne being a special lit alum commented on our section as well and made some suggestions below, some of which we
have already addressed but there are others that may be worth considering
To: Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ferguson, John
H.; Moskowitz, Eric G.
Below are my suggestions. I hope they are of some help.
Might want to change this sentence to keep conformity throughout (p.2):
Exemption 5
Typo found on p.2:
Exemption 5
In the lawsuit portion of the letter,
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008535
non-responsive
From: Garza, Jose
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
Exemption 5
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Please find attached my edits to the latest draft circulated by Jennifer. I
Exemption 5
Otherwise, I think

2
NLRB-FOIA-00008536
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
NLRB-FOIA-00008537
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00008538
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ferguson, John H.
Moskowitz, Eric G.
FW : Issa response
Oh never mindI just realized that
Exemption 5
To: Moskowitz, Eric G.
Anne being a special lit alum commented on our section as well and made some suggestions below, some of which we
have already addressed but there are others that may be worth considering
To: Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ferguson, John
H.; Moskowitz, Eric G.
Exemption 5
Typo found on p.2:
Exemption 5
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008539
non-responsive
From: Garza, Jose
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
Exemption 5
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
2
NLRB-FOIA-00008540
Richard L.
Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
L.
Exemption 5
Well that was easy.
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008541
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00008542
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Bandini, Laura E.; Simms, Abby
FW : Issa response
11 Draft Issa Response (8) - jpg - 5-24-11 (3).doc
fyi
To: Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ferguson, John H.; Ahearn, Richard
L.; Kearney, Barry J.
Re
Lawsuits Against Arizona and South Dakota
section
Non-responsive
Eric Moskowitz
1099 - 14th St., NW
202-273-2931
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013

1
NLRB-FOIA-00008543
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
Non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00008544
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008545
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008546
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008547
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008548
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008549
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008550
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008551
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Omberg, Bob
Monday, October 18, 2010 11:49 AM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Pomerantz, Anne
Katz, Judy
Boeing 19-CA-32431
Hi Rich & Anne I just left a message for Rich but am also writing this in case hes out in advance of the 2:00 (11:00
PDT) GC agenda this afternoon on the 787 work in South Carolina case, at which
Exemption 5
Thanks
Bob
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008552
Read
Recipient
Ahearn, Richard L.
Read: 10/18/2010 12:04 PM
Pomerantz, Anne
Read: 10/18/2010 11:59 AM
Katz, Judy
Read: 10/18/2010 12:53 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00008553
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:13 AM
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Katz, Judy; Omberg, Bob
RE: I know I told you so
Could you please add Bob and Judy to these e-mails?
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:10 AM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Subject: I know I told you so
Conner, the lead negotiator for Boeing, is having a dinner meeting with the IAM in Chicago Monday night. In order to
avoid a red eye into W ashington for the Tuesday meeting the meeting is being moved to Wednesday at 10. We will
receive their position paper mid day Tuesday. Look for it. Email to me, Ahearn, Lafe and Celeste. W e will discuss on the
13th
NLRB-FOIA-00008554
M s. W illen,
In response to your em ailto D ave C am pbell, the follow ing people w illbe attending the m eeting
w ith A G C Lafe S olom on next w eek.
R ichard P . M ichalski, G eneralV ice P resident, IA M A V V
C hristopher C orson, G eneralC ounsel, IA M A W
N eilG ladstein, D irector S trategic R esources, IA M A W
M ark B londin, IA M A erospace C oordinator
T om W roblew ski, P resident, IA M D istrict Lodge 751
P lease let us knoW if there is any m ore inform ation you need.
S incerely,
S chw erin C am pbellB arnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP
S eattle, W A 98119
206-285
NLRB-FOIA-00008555
Pie$ealitenties
riday, N ovem ber 12, 2010- P age updated at 03:55 P M
'e m issio n to re p rin t o r co p y th is a rticle o r p h o to , o th e r th a n p e rso n a l u se , M u st b e o b ta in e d fro m T h e S e a ttle T im e s. C a ll 2 0 6 -4 6 4 -
t1 1 3 o r e -m a il re sa le se a ttle tim e s.co m w ith you r req ue st.
3oein g assem b ly b u ild in g n earin g com p letion in S ou th C arolin a
ly D o m in ic G a te s
;ea ttle T im es a erospace reporte r
1 O ctober 20 09, B o eing p assed o ver E vere tt to pick N orth C ha rleston, S .C ., for a second 787 final asse m bly line.
he assem bly b uilding is n ow nea ring com p le tion an d B oeing w ill b e g in co n stru ctio n o f a jet-de livery cente r beside it in the com ing
veeks.
3oe ing says the fina l assem bly lin e w ill be productio n-ready b y July an d that the first S .C .-assem b led D ream lin er w ill be d elivered to
custo m er from C ha rleston in the first quarter o f 2012 .
he new build ings ad d to th e alread y im pressive e xisting fa cilities.
1 o ne build ing, B o eing curre ntly fabrica tes the rear fuse lage o f every 7 87. In anothe r, it asS e m bles the entire m id fuselag e section .
3oe ing C ha rle ston ha s abou t 3,00 0 em ployeeS an d that's set to rise to 6,400 by 20 16 w hen produ ction is ram p ed up .
fte r th e d e cisio n la st ye a r, D o u g K ig h t, th e n a B o e in g vice p re sid e n t w h o le d n e g o tia tio n s w ith th e In te rn a tio n a l A sso cia tio n o f
ilachin ists (IA M ) un io n, said B oeing w ill produce seven planes a m onth in E vere tt and three a m onth in C harlesto n by 20 13.
iow eve r, if dem a nd for the jet h olds an d produ ction at C harlesto n can b e sm oothed, it's likely th at the rate w ou ld be p ushed higher tc
ielp deliver the backlog faster.
)om in ic G ate s: 2 0 6-4 64 -29 6 3 o r d g a te s@ se a ttle tim es.co m
:opyright T he S eattle T im es C om pany
NLRB-FOIA-00008556
A L P 'V 1 6 ,1 1 .1 1 .
M b ./ J U L & j
1 1
IV
A . U . a L L o s ,U .4.L 3 a . v ..
Ih r
by T H E A S S O C IA T E D P R E S S
January 18,2011
te xt size A
A A
B o e in g p u sh e d ba ck d e live rie s o f its n e w 7 8 7
a g a in o n T u e sd a y, m e a n in g th a t th e so o n e st it w ill
arrive is July.
T h e co m p a n y h a d m o st re ce n tly sa id th a t
d e live rie s w o u ld be g in n e xt m o n th , n e a rly th re e
ye a rs la te , bu t a n e le ctrica l fire o n a p la n e in
N o ve m be r h a lte d flig h t te stin g a n d a n o th e r d e la y
h a s be e n w id e ly a n ticip a te d .
E nlarge
B en S tansall/A F P /G etty Im ages
A B o e in g 7 8 7 D re a m lin e r a ircra ft d o e s a flyby a t th e
F a rn bo ro u g h In te rn a tio n a l A irsh o w n e a r L o n d o n in Ju ly.
B o e in g sa id it e xp e cts to d e live r th e p la n e d u rin g
th e th ird q u a rte r, w h ich w o u ld be be tw e e n Ju ly
a n d th e e n d o f S e p te m be r. T h e n e w sch e d u le h a s
be e n p a d d e d in th e e ve n t th a t a n yth in g e lse g o e s
w ro n g , th e co m p a n y sa id .
B o e in g g ra d u a lly re su m e d flig h t te stin g in D e ce m be r a fte r m a kin g a n in te rim so ftw a re fix to a d d re ss th e
N o v. 9 fire th a t fo rce d a n e m e rg e n cy la n d in g in L a re d o , T e xa s, bu t th o se te sts a re n o t fo r th e
m a n d a to ry F e d e ra l A via tio n A d m in istra tio n ce rtifica tio n .
E ve n be fo re th e fire , h o w e ve r, p ro d u ctio n p ro ble m s h a ve le d to re p e a te d d isru p tio n s fo r je t, w h ich m a d e
its first flight in D e cem ber 2 009.
T h e co m p a n y sa id it w ill p ro vid e m o re in fo rm a tio n o n its fin a n cia l fo re ca st a n d d e live rie s d u rin g its
e a rn in g s co n fe re n ce ca ll o n Ja n . 2 6 . T h e re vise d d e live ry d a te is n o t e xp e cte d to h a ve a m a te ria l
im p a ct o n B o e in g 's fin a n cia l re su lts fo r 2 0 1 0 , th e co m p a n y sa id .
R elated N P R S tories
W oes M ount F or B oeing's M uch-A w aited D ream liner D ec. 9, 2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008557
YripSeatiten ties
unday, D ecem ber 19, 2010- P age updated at 03:02 P M
)e rm issio n to re p rin t o r co p y th is a rticle o r p h o to , o th e r th a n p e rso n a l u se , m u st b e o b ta in e d fro m T h e S e a ttle T im e s. C a ll 2 0 6 -4 6 4 -
t1 13 or e -m ail re sale @ se a ttle tim es.corn w ith you r re qu e st.
)ream lin er's w oes p ile u p
ly D o m in ic G a te s
;e a ttle T im e s a e ro sp a ce re p o rte r
ks B o e in g p re p a re s to a n n o u n ce ye t a n o th e r d e la y fo r th e 7 8 7 D re a m lin e r 5 0 a t
e a st th re e m o n th s, p o ssib ly six o r m o re a e th e cru cia l je t p ro g ra m is in e ve n
vorte S hape than it appears.
h e p ro b le m s g o w e ll b e yo n d th e la te st se tb a ck, a n in -flig h t e le ctrica l fire la st
n o n th th a t h a s g ro u n d e d th e te st p la n e s.
ye a r a fte r th e a irp la n e 's first flig h t, th e ca sca d e o f syste m s fa ilu re s ca u se d b y
net fire, as w e ll as tw o m a jor proble m s since su m m er w ith th e 787's R olls-R oyce
!n gin e, h ave raise d red fla gs w ith avia tio n reg ula tors.
1/4 to p
F e d e ra l A via tio n A d m in istra tio n (F A A ) o fficia l 1 0 d a ys a g o w a rn e d B o e in g
ne t w ithou t fu rther proo f o f the plan e's reliab ility, it w on 't b e certified to fly th e long
ite rco n tin e n ta l ro u te s th a t a irlin e s e xp e ct it to se rve .
tlean w hile, on the p ro duction side, o ne vete ran em p lo yee on the 7 87 said he's
vitne ssing "the p erfect sto rm of m an ufacturin g hell."
M IK E S IE G E L / T H E S E A T T LE T IM E
h e g lo b a l su p p ly ch a in is a t a sta n d still, a n d o u tsid e th e E ve re tt fa cto ry th e ro w s

W ork rem ains to be done on the tailofa 787 D ream liner a
.P aine Field in E verett.W ith m echanics w orking againsta
if partly finished jets w ill take m any m onths to C om plete.
backlog of20 partly com pleted D ream liners,B oeing has
tem porarily halted finalassem bly ofm ore.
'o deliver the 20 D re am liners b uilt since the six fligh t-test pla nes, m e chanics w ill
!aye to com p lete m ore than 1 00,00 0 tasks.
m ong the 787's lesser ongoing ,p ro b le m s is "ra in in th e p la n e ," th e te rm u se d fo r
leavy conden sation dripping in side the jet's com posite plastic fuselage . Y et th at
ssue is piddling com pare d w ith th e m ajor fla w s that h ave bro ught a w ave of
.uccessive delays.
\\
\ \ \
U nfinished D ream liners are seen lastw eek parked on the
flightline atP aine Field in E verett.B eyond the 787's
production problem s,engine and electricalissues have
T h e p u rp o se o f flig h t te sts is to fin d o u t w h a t yo u d id w ro n g ," sa id a se n io r
raised reliability questions thatcould com plicate the
!n g in e e r w h o e xp e cts th e 7 8 7 w ill u ltim a te ly p ro ve su cce ssfu l. "B u t th e a m o u n t o f

plane's certification for intercontinentalflights.
tu ff w e a re fin d in g is h o rrib le . W e sh o u ld n 't b e d e a lin g w ith th is m a n y issu e s th is
te in the pro gram ."
V ith the D rea m lin er nea rly three ye ars overd ue a'" and a postpo nem ent of the
nid-F e bruary ta rg et for first delivery e xpected to be annou nced b y C hristm as 5 "
inalysts estim ate B oeing 's co st overrun s at a staggering $12 billion or m o re .
h e h e a d o f th e 7 8 7 p ro g ra m , S co tt F a n ch e r, co n ce d e d in a n in te rvie w th is p a st
veek that h e and his team have "a to ugh job in front of us."
T h e re 's n o d o u b t w e 've h a d a lo t o f ch a lle n g e s," F a n ch e r sa id . "T h e
S cottFancher says his 787 supply chain is im proving.
le ve lo p m e n t o f a n e w a irp la n e is h a rd , e sp e cia lly o n e w ith a s m u ch in n o va tio n a s
us."
:o sts so a rin g
NLRB-FOIA-00008558
if the program 's state w ere interview ed for this story. A llw ere granted anonym ity
-Iecause B oeing doesn't perm it em ployees to speak publicly about its internal
,
roblem s.
3oeing has bet its future on the 787, w hich m ade its m aiden flight one year ago.
he com pany aim ed to reduce the cost and risk by O utsourcing an unprecedented
.hare of m anufacturing and design w ork to partners around the globe.
:'s the first new B oeing jet in m ore than 15 years, and the first airliner built largely
om light, tough carbon-fiber-reinforced com posite plastic. A nd it's been a
narketing blockbuster: D espite a totalof 120 cancellations, B oeing stillhas 846
irders.
R IC A R D O S A N I O S / A l
F irefighters responded w hen an onboard fire forced an
em ergency landing at the Laredo, T exas, airport during
787 test flight N ov. 9.
'et the 787 has run into m ore trouble than any previous B oeing jet.
he com pany's originalinternaltarget for its ow n developm ent costs w as $5 billion. B ut w ith yet another delay, severalW allS treet
inalysts .estim ate that fixing the litany of m anufacturing problem s, plus paying penalties to suppliers and airlines, has piled on an
idditional$12 billion to $18 billion.
he 20 built but incom plete D ream liners sitting in E verett are em blem atic of allthat has gone w rong.
hey are so far from done that the totalnum ber of unfinished jobs exceeds 105,000.
;ounting further rew ork planned after som e of the jets are flow n to S an A ntonio, T exas, for refurbishm ent before delivery, the tally of
lcom plete jobs is m ore than 140,000.
S om e jobs take a day, som e take w eeks," said a w orker dealing w ith the backlog.
3oeing is rew orking six partly finished jets at a tim e, tw o of them in an em pty bay inside the factory, tw o in a hangar at the south end
)f P aine F ield, and tw o m ore on the flight line. M echanics can com plete only about 500 jobs a m onth out on the field, and perhaps
,000 jobs a m onth on those inside the factory, the person said.
'hese jets have no seats or sidew alls, and m any interior system s are m issing or incom plete. P assenger doors are m issing.
A echanics installed tem porary air-conditioning units after those fitted initially kept failing.
lorizontaltails poorly built by A lenia in Italy are stillbeing rew orked. W ith the w orkm anship on the tails varying from one plane to the
iext, m echanics have to painstakingly custom ize the fixes plane by plane.
T hat headache at least produced one piece of good 787 new s for this region. A lenia w illstillbuild 787 tails, but as B oeing ram ps up
leyond seven planes a m onth, it plans to build the additionaltails in the P uget S ound area, possibly at its parts-m anufacturing plant
A uburn, according to em ployees.)
)espite the attention focused on achieving the first delivery, the m anufacturing quagm ire suggests that B oeing w illbe slow to deliver
le next few dozen planes.
H op p in g arou n d "
V ith its parked D ream liners m any m onths from com pletion, F ancher said B oeing is likely to skip over earlier planes that need m ore
vork and m ove up the delivery of som e later-built, m ore com pleted jets.
Y ou m ay see us hopping around a bit," he said, adding that it's a m atter of balancing the m ost efficient w ay to finish the w ork w ith thr
ustom ers'need to get a specific jet by a specific date.
'he w orker dealing w ith the backlog puts it differently: "T hey've dug a hole so deep, they have no choice but to go around it and leavi
le hole there."
)n B oeing's 747, 767 and 737N G program s, parts shortages and late redesigns on early planes also stacked up dozens of
n o , + Is e . P in k +
In r .
D . if
+ h e .
la e n e L e s e 1 + k r .,
v Ii4 4 .....
r.lA rs a n ie ie . e s to e s e
IN ie g e tiC in n r s f v s .
rs i
NLRB-FOIA-00008559
A eanw -hile, the flight tests have brought new design problem s to light.
kfter runw ay tests in R osw ell, N .M ., in S eptem ber, four R olls-R oyce engines had to be sw apped out from the flight-test airplanes.
1ccording to a person fam iliar w ith the problem , m echanics discovered cracking of sm allblades called airfoils in one of the engine's
om pressors.
5E and R olls both provide 787 engines, but the R olls engine w illpow er M ost of the early D ream liners.
separate and m ore serious incident occurred a m onth earlier, W hen a R olls engine blew up on a ground test stand in E ngland,
ending m etalpieces shooting out of the engine casing.
not her person w ith know ledge of that event said an investigation afterw ard revealed that one of the engine shafts can, under certain
:onditions, turn too fast. T hat m ay not have caused the blow up, but it is out of com pliance w ith F A A regulations.
tolls is testing hardw are and softw are changes to solve the problem , though it hasn't w on approvalfrom the regulatory agencies.
;om pany spokesm an Josh R osenstock said R olls is convinced the engine w illpass m uster w ith the F A A in tim e for B oeing's delivery
chedule.
iow ever, the engine m odifications, plus an electricalsystem redesign needed as a result of the in-flight fire last m onth, w illadd to thE
ilut of out-of-sequence w ork in the jets already built.
:A A issu es
V orse, the engine and electricalissues have also raised crucialquestions late in the program about the plane's reliability, potentially
iffecting regulators'certification of the airplane.
E arlier this m onth, John H ickey, the F A A 's deputy associate adm inistrator for aviation safety, visited S eattle and w arned 787
!xecutives that in the current state of the program , the jet cannot be certified for long-distance transocean and transpolar flights,
iccording to a person fam iliar w ith the details.
loeing designed and m arketed the 787 as an ultra-long-range jet, and its custom ers are counting on that capability from the m om ent
plane enters service.
3ut the 787 w ouldn't be allow ed to fly m ore than 60 m inutes from the nearest airport w ithout the certification know n as E T O P S , for
E xtended-range T w in-engine O perationalP erform ance S tandards. T hat w ould drastically curtailthe use of the jet for m any airlines,
icluding launch custom er A llN ippon A irw ays of Japan.
lickey, a form er B oeing engineer, put B oeing on notice that to get an early E T O P S rating the com pany w illhave to do m ore to
lem onstrate the plane's reliability, including specifically the reliability of the engine and electricalsystem s.
keam liner chief F ancher confirm ed the recent m eeting w ith the F A A over E T O P S and acknow ledged that engine and electrical
ystem reliability w ere discussed. B ut he said that such m eetings about the F A A 's certification requirem ents are "typical," and that
being w ill"fully address their concerns."
Iso draw ing separate F A A scrutiny is repeated poor-quality w orkm anship in the 787 fueltank, including issues w ith fasteners, said
le person fam iliar w ith the F A A visit.
hat problem reaches back into the 787 supply pipeline, w hich continues to stutter.
;u p p liers go slow
N ovem ber, for the fourth tim e this year, B oeing stopped m oving planes forw ard on its finalassem bly line and halted deliveries of
le m ajor sections to E verett. Just one airplane had com e off the line since the previous line stoppage in O ctober.
'ancher said the line halts are part of his "balancing act" to allow som e suppliers to catch up w ith others and to slow the flow onto
'eine F ield of new planes needing to have the latest fixes applied.
NLRB-FOIA-00008560
ancher cited "solid progress" at B oeing C harleston, w hich m akes the 787's rear end. H e conceded that A lenia of Italy "definitely
em ains a challenge."
he other partners and the final-assem bly team in E verett are "com ing dow n the learning curve nicely," he said.
or now , though, the pipeline is stillblocked.
;pirit A eroS ystem s of W ichita, K an., w hich m akes the D ream liner's forw ard section, has reassigned m ost of its 787 w ork force until
fork picks up again. A nd though in recent years B oeing's 787 em ployees have w orked through m ost of the C hristm as holidays to
:atch up, a w orker at B oeing C harleston said that plant this year w illlargely shut dow n its production lines.
he latest delay w illat least give engineers m ore tim e to test design fixes, including som e for less consequentialtroubles, not
incom m on on new jets, such as the m addening drip, drip, drip of "rain in the plane." O n 787 flight tests, drip trays padded w ith
,quares of absorbent cloth are positioned to collect the condensation.
'ancher said "a good design fix" to dehum idify the interior is being installed and w illbe tested w hen the D ream liners resum e flying.
:m ployees w orking on the 787 com plain about insufficient oversight of suppliers and a m anagem ent system that the senior engineer
ailed "totally broken."
T his program is not like anything w e've seen," said the veteran 787 em ployee. "It's a screw ed-up m ess."
'et.F ancher said the feedback he receives is that em ployees are "proud to be part of an adventure like this."
-le insists his team w illsurm ount allthe problem s.
T his is a great airplane. It w illdeliver on the prom ises," F ancher said. "O ur job is to get it over the goalline."
)om inic G ates: 206-464-2963 or dgates@ seattletim es.com
:opyright C ) T he S eattle T im es C om pany
NLRB-FOIA-00008561
...
W dstlaw .
Page 1
129 F.Supp.2d 1273,166 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2293
(C ite as: 129 F .Supp.2d 1273)
U nited States D istrict C ourt,
C .D .C alifornia.
V ictoria A G U A Y O ,R egional D irector of the
T w enty-First R egion of the N ational L abor R elations
B oard,for and on the behalf of the N A T IO N A L L A -.
B O R R E L A T IO N S B O A R D ,Petitioner,
V.
Q U A D R T E C H C O R PO R A T IO N ,R espondent.
N o.C V 00-11039 C M M A N X .
N ov. 21, 2000.
N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ) brought
action to enjoin em ployer from relocating its produc-
tion facilities to M exico pending resolution of labor
dispute. O n N L R B 's m otion for prelim inary injunc-
tion, the D istrict C ourt, M oreno, J., held that: (1)
N L R B w as likely to prevail on its claim that reloca-
tion decision w as unfair labor practice,and (2) N L R B
w as likely to prevail on its claim that em ployer com -
m itted unfair labor practice by refusing to bargain
collectively w ith its em ployees'representatives be-
fore announcing relocation.
M otion granted.
W est H eadnotes
al L abor and E m ploym ent 231H = '1694
23IH L abor and E m ploym ent
231H X II L abor R elations
231H X II(I) L abor R elations B oards and Pro-
ceedings
231H X II(I)1 In G eneral
231H k1692 Interim R elief
231H k1694 k. G rounds. M ost C ited
C ases
(Form erly 232A k518 L abor R elations)
W hen presented w ith petition by N ational L abor R e-
lations B oard (N L R B ) for prelim inary injunction
under N ational L abor R elations A ct (N L R A ) pending
disposition of unfair labor practice charge, district
court m ust apply traditional equitable principles in
m anner sensitive to N L R A 's prim ary purpose to pro :-
tect integrity of collective bargaining process and to
preserve N L R B 's rem edial pow er w hile it processes
charge. N ational L abor R elations A ct, 10(j), as
am ended, 29 U .S .C .A . 160(j).
J L abor and E m ploym ent 231H C ='1696(3)
231H L abor and E m ploym ent
ceedings
231H X II(1)1 In G eneral
231H k1696 Proceedings
231H k1696(3) k. W eight and
Sufficiency in G eneral.M ost C ited C ases
N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ) w as likely
to prevail on its claim that em ployer com m itted un-
fair labor practice by relocating its production facili-
ties to M exico, and thus prelim inary injunction pre-
venting em ployer from relocating w as w arranted, in
light of substantial evidence that em ployer had con-
ducted anti-union cam paign, w here decision w as an-
nounced one day after union w as certified. N ational
L abor R elations A ct, 8(a)(1, 3), as am ended, 29
U .S .C .A . 158(a)(1, 3).
J l L abor and E m ploym ent 231H C ='1486
231H X I1(G ) U nfair L abor Practices
23114k1486 k. S hutdow ns and L ockouts.
M ost C ited C ases
It is unfair labor practice for em ployer to relocate
plant in order to thw art unionization of its w orkers,
even w here relocation is law ful.N ational L abor R ela-
tions A ct, 8(a)(3), as am ended, 29 U .S .C .A .
158(a)(3).
L abor and E m ploym ent 231H C ='1435
231H X II(G ) U nfair L abor Practices
C 2010 T hom son R euters.N o C laim to O rig.U S G ov.W orks.
NLRB-FOIA-00008562
Page 2 -
129 F.Supp.2d 1273,166 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2293
(C ite as: 129 F.Supp.2d 1273)
231H k1435 k. U nfair Practices of E m -
ployer in G eneral.M ostC ited C ases
R hetoric of "cheap foreign labor" is shibboleth that
em ployers m ay not rely upon to justify unlaw ful,
anti-union conduct.N ational L abor R elations A ct,
8(a)(3),as am ended,29 U .S.C .A .158(a)(3).
J.L abor and E m ploym ent 231H =)1140
231H X II(C ) C ollective B argaining
231H k1 123 Particular Subjects of B argain-
ing
231H k1140 k.L ayoffs;C ontracting O ut
W ork.M ostC ited'C ases
U nions do not have right to participate in em ployers'
decision m aking as to w hether or not to close facility.
N ational L abor R elations A ct, 8(a)(5),as am ended,
29 U .S.C .A . 158(a)(5).
L C L abor and E m ploym ent 231H =1695(2)
ceedings
231 H X II(I)1 In G eneral
231H k1695 Particular S ubjects of
R elief
231H k1695(2) k. A ctivities of
E m ployer in G eneral.M ostC ited C ases
N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ) w as likely
to prevail on its claim that em ployer com m itted un-
fair labor practice by refusing to bargain collectively
w ith its em ployees'representatives before announce-
m ent of its decision to relocate its production facili-
ties to M exico, and thus prelim inary injunction to
require em ployer to recognize and bargain in good
faith w ith union regarding decision w as w arranted,
w here em ployer's relocation announcem ent w as sent
one day after union's certification. N ational L abor
R elations A ct, 8(a)(5),as am ended,29 U .S.C .A .
I 58(a)(5).
*1274 Julie B .G utm an,N eil A .W arheit,W illiam M .
Pate,L os A ngeles,C A ,for petitioner.
G regory G .K ennedy,D eborah H .F'etito,D ouglas H .
H oang,G oldstein,K ennedy & Petito,L os A ngeles,
C A ,for respondent.
O R D E R G R A N T IN G PR E L IM IN A R Y IN JU N C -
T IO N
M O R E N O ,D istrictJudge.
T he C ourt,having considered the m oving papers,the
opposition, and all further evidence A nd argum ent
subm itted in support of the parties'papers, grants the
Petitioner's m otion for a prelim inary injunction.
I. B ackground
T he instant case concerns a labor dispute betw een
R espondent Q uadrtech, Inc. ("Q uadrtech" or "R e-
spondent") and M aria A .V enegas ("V enegas") and
the International U nion of E lectronic, E lectrical,
S alaried, M achine F urniture W orkers, A F L -C IO
("IU E " or "the U nion").V enegas and IU E have filed
charges against Q uadrtech in cases that are before the
Petitioner,N ational L abor R elations B oard ("N L R B "
or "the B oard").T he N L R B brings this case pursuant
to 29 U .S.C . ,S 160(j).T he N L R B petitions this C ourt
to enjoin R espondent from relocating to M exico
pending resolution of the aforem entioned labor dis-
pute.
R espondent m anufactures jew elry and piercing m a-
chines.In or about January 2000,Q uadrtech opened
sh o p in G ard en a, C aliforn ia. It is alleg ed that
Q uadrtech's ow ner, V ladim ir R eil ("R eil"), ow ns a
jew elry com pany in H arbor C ity, C alifornia called
O nyx.Prior to January,2000,R eil's entire business
operation w as located in H arbor C ity. R espondent
allegedly initiated a "lock-out" on M ay 18,2000 fol-
low ing em ployee protests over w orking conditions.
O n M ay 18, 2000 V enegas filed a charge w ith the
B oard in C ase 21-C A -339997. A lso on M ay 18,
2000,IU E filed a petition w ith the B oard for a union
election at the R espondent's G ardena facility. T he
election w as set for June 29,2000.
*1275 B etw een M ay 18 and June 29,2000,R espon-
dent engaged in various activities to discourage
Q uadrtech em ployees from unionizing. T he Peti-
tioner alleges that Q uadrtech's activities w ere unlaw -
ful. T he B oard subm its volum inous affidavit evi-
2010 T hom son R euters.N o C laim to O rig.U S G ov.W orks.
NLRB-FOIA-00008563
Page 3
129 F.Supp.2d 1273,166 L .R .R .M .(13N A ) 2293
(C ite as: 129 F.Supp.2d 12'73)
dence suggesting that,inter alia,Q uadrtech's ow ner
and agents interrogated Q uadrtech em ployees as to
their union sym pathies and activities; threatened em -
ployees w ith job loss and reductions in benefits if
they voted in favor of the U nion; suggested the plant
w ould relocate if em ployees voted in favor of the
U nion; and prom ised benefits to em ployees if they
voted againstthe U nion.
rel.N LR B v.Tom co C arburetor C o., 853 F.2d 744,
747 (9th C ir.1988) (sam e).O ther circuits continue to
em brace this standard. See, e.g., K aynard v. M ego
C orp., 633 F.2d 1026,1033 (2d C ir.1980). H irsch v.
D orsey T railers, Inc.,

1 4 7 F .3 d 2 4 3 , 2 4 7 (3 d
C ir.1998).
O n June 29, 2000, the approxim ately 118 eligible
unit em ployees at the G ardena facility voted in favor
of the U nion.O n July 12,2000,the U nion w as certi-
fied as the exclusive collective bargaining representa-
tive of the unit. O n July 13, 2000, R espondent's at-
torney,G regory K ennedy,dispatched a letter to the
U nion indicating that Q uadrtech w ould be relocating
certain production jobs to M exico.T he letter stated
that, as a consequence of the relocation, Q uadrtech
w ould lay off up to 80 unit em ployees betw een N o-
vem ber 3 and N ovem ber 17,2000.T he letter articu-
lates the R espondent's w illingness to engage in "good
faith" bargaining w ith the U nion regarding the effects
of R espondent's decision.R espondent did not in any
w ay indicate prior to July 13,2000 that it w as plan-
ning to relocate.O n July 13,2000,the U nion filed a
charge against Q uadrtech w ith the B oard in C ase 21-
C A -34084.
T he B oard shall have pow er, upon issu-
ance of a com plaint as provided in subsec-
tion (b) of this section charging that any
person has engaged in or is engaging in an
unfair labor practice, to petition any
U nited S tates district court, w ithin any
district w herein the unfair labor practice
in question is alleged to have occurred or
w herein such person resides or transacts
business,for appropriate tem porary relief
or restraining order. U pon the filing of
any such petition the court shall cause no-
tice thereof to be served upon such per-
son,and thereupon shall have jurisdiction
to grant to the B oard such tem porary relief
or restraining order as it deem s just and
proper.
T he B oard argues that if R espondent is not enjoined
from relocating to M exico, the N L R B 's ability to
adjudicate C ases 21-C A -33997 and 21-C A -34084
w illbe irrem ediably harm ed.
II.Standard
Section 10(j) of the N L R A , 29 U .S.C . 160(j), au-
thorizes the N L R B to petition U nited States district
courts for injunctions against unlaw ful labor practices
pending their adjudication before the B oard.D istrict
courts are, in turn, em pow ered to grant injunctions
w here they appear "just and proper."

F -I1T here is
variation betw een circuits as to the standard for
granting a Section 10(j) injunction.U ntil recently,the
N inth C ircuit em braced a standard that w as rather
generous to the N L R B . See Scott ex rel.N LR B v.E l
F arra E nters., Inc., 863 F .2d 670, 673-74 (9th
C ir.1988) (prom ulgating a tw o-part test that first
asked w hether the B oard had reasonable cause to
believe the em ployer violated the N L R A and,second,
w hether an injunction w as necessary to prevent frus-
tration of the N L R A 's rem edial purpose); A guayo ex
FN 1.29 U .S.C . 160(j) provides that:
W T he N inth C ircuit has overruled Tom co and E l
F arra and deployed a m ore stringent standard in their
stead. M iller v.C alifornia P acific M edical C enter, 19
F.3d 449,457 (1994) (en banc).T his,m ore stringent
standard,interprets Section 10(j)'s "just and proper"
language through the lens of traditional equitable
principles.EL 12*1276 M iller, how ever, does not in-
struct district courts to rely on traditional equitable
principles as understood in non-labor contexts.
R ather, the N inth C ircuit has instructed that low er
courts apply traditional equitable principles in a m an-
ner that is ensitive to Section 10(j)'s prim ary purpose:
"to protect the integrity of the collective bargaining
process and to preserve the B oard's rem edial pow er
w hile it processes the charge." Id at 459-60.Section
10(j) seeks to "ensure that an unfair labor practice
w ill not succeed because the B oard takes too long ...
to adjudicate the charge." Id. at460.
FN 2. T he traditional test requires "(1) a
strong likelihood of success on the m erits,
(2) the possibility, of irreparable injury to
plaintiff if the prelim inary relief is not
granted,(3) a balance of hardships favoring
NLRB-FOIA-00008564
Page 4
129 F.Supp.2d 1273,166 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2293
the plaintiff, and (4) advancem ent of the
public interest[.]"
Johnson v. C alifornia
State B d.of A ccountancy,

72 F .3d 1427,
1430 (9th C ir.1995). U nder the so-called
"alternative test," a party seeking prelim i-
nary injunctive relief m ust dem onstrate ei-
ther (1) a com bination of probable success
on the m erits and the possibility of irrepara-
ble injury; or (2) that serious questions are
raised and the balance of hardships tips
sharply in the m oving party's favor. Stanley
v.U niversity ofSouthern C alifornia, 13 F.3d
1313,1319 (9th C ir.1 994).J T aken together,
the tw o tests reflect "a sliding scale in w hich
the required degree of irreparable harm in-
creases as the probability of success de-
creases." M A I System s C orp.v.P eak C om -
puter,Inc., 991 F.2d 511,516 (9th C ir.1993)
(citations and internal quotation m arks om it-
ted).
T his C ourt w ill not sim ply sign off on the B oard's
request for equitable relief. Id. at 458. T he B oard
m ust dem onstrate that it has at least a fair chance of
w inning its case on the m erits. Id. at 460.T he C ourt
w ill determ ine w hether the B oard has m et its burden
in light of the C ourt's lack of jurisdiction over the
unfair labor practice in question and the appellate
deference accorded to N L R B determ inations. Id. (cit-
ing N LR B v.C ity D isposal Sys.,Inc.,

465 U .S.822,
829, 104 S .C t. 1505, 79 L .E d.2d 839 (1984)). T he
B oard can "m ake a threshold show ing of likelihood
of success by producing som e evidence to support the
unfair labor practice charge together w ith an arguable
theory." Id.
If the B oard,dem onstrates that it is likely to prevail
on the m erits,the C ourt shall presum e that irreparable
injury w ould result absent the prelim inary injunction.
Id. If the B oard has only a fair chance of prevailing
on the m erits,the C ourt m ust consider the possibility
of irreparable injury. Id.
III. A nalysis
A . The M erits
123 T he N L R B
argues that R espondent's decision to
relocate production facilities to M exico violates Sec-
tions 8(a)(1),(3),and (5) of the N L R A .For reasons
discussed below ,the C ourt concludes that the N L R B
is likely to prevail on its claim .
1. D efendant's D ecision to Lay off E m ployees and
R elocate
13"1 S ection 8(a)(3) of the N L R A , 29 U .S .C .
158(a)(3),defines an unfair labor practice by an em -
ployer as one w hich is discrim inatory in a m anner
that discourages m em bership in a labor organiza-
tion.FI
L
3A n em ployer m ay not relocate a plant in or-
der to thw art the unionization of its w orkers. See,
e.g., N LR B v. Taylor M achine P roducts. Inc.,

136
F.3d 507,515 (6th C ir.1998).C ourts have held that
even w here a relocation is law ful,an em ployer m ay
not uk it as a vehicle by w hich to rid itself of union-
ized em ployees. See,e.g.,D unbar v.C olony Liquor
15 F .S upp.2d 223, 234
and W ine. D istr., L L C
(N .D .N .Y .1998).
FN 3.Section 158(a)(1) provides that it shall
be an unfair labor practice for an em ployer
"to interfere w ith, restrain or coerce em -
ployees in the exercise of the rights guaran-
teed in section 157 of this title."
Section 158(a)(3) provides that it shall be
an unfair labor practice for an em ployer,
"by discrim ination in regard to hire or
tenure of em ploym ent or any term or con-
dition of em ploym ent to encourage or dis-
courage m em bership in any labor organi-
zation ..."
Section .$ 158(a)(1),"is the blanket provi-
sion that shields em ployees from unfair
labor practices.In m ost unfair labor prac-
tice cases, the B oard has rested its deci-
sions prim arily on the particularized pro-
visions of [158(a)(2)-(5) ]; in such cases,
the B oard has found that the em ployer has
violated section [158(a)(1) ] only deriva-
tively."
M icroim age D isplay D iv. O f
X idex C orp.v.N LR B ,
924 F.2d 245,250
(D .C .C ir.1991).
*1277 Section 8(a)(3) only prohibits relocations that
are m otivated by unlaw ful intentions.Presently,the
R espondent asserts that legitim ate, econom ic con-
cerns precipitated its decision to relocate. In ascer-
taining the relocation's cause,the N L R B has prom ul-
gated a standard based upon the S uprem e C ourt's
NLRB-FOIA-00008565
Page 5
129 F.Supp.2d 1273,166 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2293
(C ite as: 129 F .Supp.2d 1273)
opinion in M t. H ealthy C ity Sch. D istrict B oard of
Ed.v.D oyle, 429 U .S.274,97 S.C t.568,50 L .E d.2d
471 (1977):
First,w e shall require that the G eneral C ounsel m ake
a prim a facie show ing sufficient to support the infer-
ence that protected conduct w as a "m otivating factor"
in the em ployer's decision.O nce this is established,
the burden w ill shift to the em ployer to dem onstrate
that the sam e action w ould have taken place even in
the absence of the protected conduct.
W rightLine, 251 N L R B 1083,1089 (1980), enfd 662
F.2d 899 (1stC ir.1981).
T he Suprem e C ourt has approved the N L R B 's burden
shifting schem e. N LR B v.Transportation M anage-
m entC orp., 462 U .S. 393, 398, 103 S.C t. 2469, 76
FN4
L .E d.2d 667 (1983).

In the course of affirm ing
W rightLine, the C ourt also stated that Section 7(c) of
the A dm inistrative Procedure A ct ("A PA ") "deter-
m ines only the burden O f going forw ard,not the bur-
den of persuasion." Id.

at 403-04 n. 7, 103 S .C t.
2469.In D irector,Q ffice of W orkers'C om pensation
P rogram s v..G reenw ich C ollieries 512 U .S.267,114
S.C t.2251,129 L .E d.2d 221 (1994),the C ourt over-
ruled this interpretation of Section 7(c).Section 7(c)
does determ ine the "burden of persuasion," and thus
requires that the burden perpetually rem ain w ith the
-- action's proponent. N evertheless, the

G reenw ich
C ourt concluded that

W right Line
w as appropriate
because it did no m ore than im pose the burden of
proving an affirm ative defense on the em ployer.
G reenw ich, 512 U .S.at 278,114 S.C t.2251. G reen-
w ich, how ever,does suggest that the proponent m ust
m ake a som ew hat greater show ing than just a prim a
facie one. See

Southw est M erchandising C orp. v.
NLRB, 53 F.3d 1334,1340 n.8 (D .C .C ir.1995).
FN 4.Section 7(c) provides that "[e]xcept as
otherw ise provided by statute,the proponent
of a rule or order has the burden of proof." 5
U .S.C .S 556(d).
Presently,the N L R B has adduced considerable evi-
dence indicating that anti-union anim us m otivated
Q uadrtech's decision to relocate to M exico.First,the
tim ing of Q uadrtech's decision is suggestive.In Janu-
ary,.2000 Q uadrtech m oved its m achinery and 118
em ployees from a facility in H arbor C ity,C alifornia
to G ardena, C alifornia. A m .Pet.E xh. 8. T he N L R B
advances evidence suggesting that Q uadrtech's
ow ner, V ladm ir R eil, invested significant tim e and
m oney in the relocation.N um erous em ployees have
testified that,a few w eeks before the union election,
R eil stated that he w ould not relocate the plant on
account of having invested so m uch in the m ove from
H arbor C ity.A m .Pet.E xhs.12,14,32.
O n M ay 18,2000,the U nion filed a petition for the
B o ard to san ctio n a u n io n electio n am o n g
Q uadrtech's em ployees.A m .Pet.E xh.35.Q uadrtech
chose not to contest any of the issues precluding or
otherw ise affecting the election.R ather,on M ay 25,
2000,it entered into a Stipulated E lection A greem ent.
A m .Pet.E xh.36.A t no point prior to the union elec-
tion did Q uadrtech announce or otherw ise suggest
thatit w as planning a relocation that w ould result in a
substantialreduction of its personnel.Y et,on July 13,
2000,one day after the U nion w as certified,R espon-
dent,through its attorney,sent a letter to the U nion
announcing Q uadrtech's plans to relocate production
to M exico. In the letter, R espondent stated that it
w ould lay off up to 80 of the approxim ately 117 em -
ployees in the bargaining unit. D ecl. G regory G .
K ennedy E xh.1.
T he tim ing of Q uadrtech's announcem ent strongly
supports the inference that anti-union anim us m oti-
vated its relocation calculus. T his inference is bol-
stered by evidence of an anti-union cam paign orches-
trated by the R espondents.T he N L R B advances evi-
dence that,up and until the *1278 union election on
June 29,2000,R espondent,inter alia,engaged in the
follow ing conduct: 1) a tw o-and-a-half-day lock-out
in M ay,2000; A m .Pet.E xhs.6,10,17,19; 2) hiring
"labor consultants" w ho, inter alia, told em ployees
that the U nion w as m alevolent and that the em ploy-
ees w ould receive less pay and benefits if they union-
ized; A m .Pet.E xhs.8,18,24,29; 3) through supervi-
sors, individually and collectively threatening em -
ployees w ith discharge and reductions in pay and
benefits if they voted for the union; A m .Pet.E xh.15;
and 4) that on the day before the union election,R eil,
in a m eeting w ith all day shift em ployees,stated that
Q uadrtech w ould not be able to com pete if it had to
pay higher w ages;R eilalso distributed a letter stating
that there w ould be no retaliation against U nion sup-
porters if the U nion lost; A m .Pet.E xhs.7,14,32.
[4].In its defense,Q uadrtech states thatits relocation
decision w as entirely predicated upon legitim ate eco-
NLRB-FOIA-00008566
Page 6
129 F.Supp.2d 1273,166 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2293
nom ic considerations.R=L5G iven im m inent increases
in C alifornia's m inim um w age,R espondent contends
that it sim ply w ill not be able to bear the com petitive
pressures of an increasingly "globalized" econom y.
In support of its argum ent,R espondent subm its sun-
dry articles and statem ents attesting to the com peti-
tive pressures generated by goods m ade outside the
U nited S tates by low -w age w orkers. R espondent,
how ever,subm its scant em pirical evidence as to its
current and/or projected financial health. R ather,
Q uadrtech sim ply rests on the unsupported sugges-
tion that spectral,low -w age C hinese w orkers haunt
its business related decision-m aking.T he rhetoric of
"cheap foreign labor" is a shibboleth that em ployers
m ay not rely upon to justify unlaw ful, anti-union
conduct. See F irst N ational M aintenance C orp. v.
NLRB,
4 5 2 U .S . 6 6 6 , 6 8 2 , 1 0 1 S .C t. 2 5 7 3 , 6 9
L .E d.2d 318 (1981) ("A n em ployer m ay not sim ply
shut dow n part of its business and m ask its desire to
w eaken and circum vent the union by labeling its de-
cision 'purely econom ic.'").Q uadrtech's evidence is
perilously inadequate. .
FN 5. In oral argum ent,R espondent invoked
sim ilar logic in urging this C ourt,to the ex-
tent it is w illing to enjoin R espondent at all,
to do so only in a lim ited m anner.In particu-
lar, R espondent urges this C ourt to enjoin
Q nadrtech from laying-off w orkers in the
relevant bargaining unit (as opposed to en-
joining the com pany from relocating its fa-
cilities).R espondent,how ever,cites no au-
thority to suggest that this C ourt is pre-
cluded from enjoining an unlaw ful reloca-
tion. N or does R espondent challenge Peti-
tioner's assertion that the N L R B 's adjudica-
tory purpose w ill be irrem ediably frustrated
w ith anything less than an injunction that
does notpreclude relocation.
R espondent also argues that its allegedly anti-union
activity w as actually conduct protected by section
8(c) of the N L R A ,29 U .S.C . 158(c).Section 8(c)
perm its em ployers to express their view s regarding
unionization provided that they do not threaten em -
-1-\16T he Suprem e
ployees w ith any sort of reprisal.

F
C ourthas stated that:
FN 6. In particular, S ection 8(c) of the
N L R A ,29 U .S.C . I58(c),provides that:
T he expressing of any view s,argum ent,or
opinion, or the dissem ination thereof,
w hether in w ritten, printed, graphic, or
visual form ,shall not constitute or be evi-
dence of an unfair labor practice under
any of the provisions of this subchapter,if
such expression contains no threat of re-
prisal or force or prom ise of benefit.
[A ]n em ployer is free to com m unicate to his em ploy-
ees any of his general view s about unionism or any of
his specific view s about a particular union,so long as
the com m unications do not contain a threat of repri-
sal or force or prom ise of benefit.H e m ay even m ake
a prediction as to the precise effects he believes un-
ionization w ill have on his com pany.In such a case,
how ever,the prediction m ust be carefully phrased on
the basis of objective fact to convey an em ployer's
belief as to dem onstrably probable consequences
beyond his control or to convey a m anagem ent deci-
sion already arrived at to close the plant in case of
unionization.If there is any im plication that an em -
ployer m ay or m ay not take action solely on his ow n
initiative for *1279 reasons unrelated to econom ic
necessities and know n only to him ,the statem ent is
no longer a reasonable prediction based on available
facts buta threatof retaliation....
N LR B v.G issel P acking,C o.,

395 U .S. 575, 618, 89
S .C t. 1918, 23 L .E d.2d 547 (1969) (citations om it-
ted).
Q uadrtech argues that statem ents m ade by its ow ner,
R eil,to Q uadrtech em ployees are protected by Sec-
tion 8(c).R eil's statem ents to Q uadrtech em ployees
on June 21 and 28,2000 are not outw ardly threaten-
ing. T hey are, how ever, thick w ith suggestion. T he
N L R B adduces evidence indicating that R eil asked
Q uadrtech em ployees to consider the effects of un-
ionizing in the sam e breath that he asserted a union
shop's inability to com pete against non-U .S.produc-
ers w ho rely upon low -w age w orkers.R eil exhorted
Q uadrtech em ployees to return hom e and look w here
their household appliances and w ares had been m ade.
E xhs.7,12,14.T he N L R B 's evidence suggests that
R eil's statem ents w ere m enacingly portentous, in
part,because they w ere uttered in the context of w hat
w as an on-going anti-union cam paign.
Q uadrtech also proffers thin evidence in support of
its explanation for w hat the N L R B alleges to have
been an unlaw ful lock-out.R espondent does not ad-
NLRB-FOIA-00008567
Page 7
129 F.Supp.2d 1273,166 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2293
vance any significant argum ent or evidence concern-
ing the other conduct constituting the anti-union
cam paign.In short,this C ourt finds it likely that the
N L R B w ill succeed on the m erits of its claim s under
Sections 8(a)(1) and (3).A s such,the C ourt m ay pre-
sum e that irreparable injury w ill result if this prelim i-
nary injunction is notgranted.
2. G ood F aith B argaining
fs_1
S ection 8(a)(5) of the N L R A , 29 U .S .C .
158(a)(5), provides that it shall be unlaw ful for an
em ployer to refuse to bargain collectively w ith its
em ployees'representatives. U nions do not have a
right to participate in em ployers'decision M aking as
to w hether or not to close a facility. F irst N ational
452 U .S. at 681, 101 S.C t. 2573. E m ployers, how -
ever,m ust bargain over the effects of a plant closure.
Id. In this w ay, unions m ay indirectly ensure that
closure decisions are deliberately considered. Id. U n-
ions are also thereby able to protect them selves
against plant closure decisions that are anim ated by
anti-union sentim ent. Id
Presently,the N L R B contends that Q uadrtech failed
to bargain in good faith regarding the effects of its
relocation decision.Q uadrtech w as required to bar-
gain over its decision in a m eaningful m anner and at
a m eaningfultim e. Id. T o the extent that Q uadrtech's
decision w as unlaw ful, it is not clear that any bar-
gaining gesture w ould have been adequate.T hatsaid,
R espondent's "good faith" overture cam e in the form
of a letter dated July 13,2000,the day after the U n-
ion's certification.In the letter,R espondent's attorney
announced R espondent's decision to relocate and
consequential plans to term inate the m ajority of its
w orkers atthe G ardena facility.
[6] T he R espondent's letter is patently pro form a.It
w as dispatched in the im m ediate w ake of the U nion's
certification.M oreover,the letter presents a prefabri-
cated schem e for going about the term ination. In
short,Q uadrtech's bargaining gesture seem s to fall
short of the "m eaningful m anner" and "m eaningful
tim e" requirem ents. T he C ourt concludes that the
B oard is likely to succeed in proving a violation of
Section 8(a)(5). A s such no show ing of irreparable
injury is necessary.
B. B alancing E quities
For reasons stated above, the C ourt concludes that
irreparable injury is likely to result if an injunction is
not granted. R espondent asserts that it has already
suffered substantially as a result of the T em porary
R estraining O rder this C ourt granted against it.
Q uadrtech's M em . P & A 2. Q uadrtech, how ever,
adduces no m eaningful evidence as to the dim ensions
of its suffering.
*1280 C onclusion
Pending final disposition of C ases 21-C A -3397 and
21-C A -34084 before the B oard,the C ourt grants the
follow ing interim relief:
1. Q uadrtech C orporation, its officers, representa-
tives,agents,servants,em ployees,attorneys and all
persons acting in concert w ith it are enjoined and
restrained from :
(a) R efusing to recognize and bargain in good faith
w ith D istrict C ouncil 8,IU E ,the Industrial D ivision
of the C om m unications W orkers of A m erica,A FL -
C IO ,C L C (IU E -C W A ) as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the U nit em ployees about w ages,
hours and other term s and conditions of em ploym ent
of U nit em ployees,including,but not lim ited to,any
decision to lay off em ployees,and/or to subcontract
or relocate U nit w ork that is a m andatory subject of
collective bargaining under the A ct.T he appropriate
U nitis:
A ll full-tim e and regular part-tim e production and
m aintenance em ployees,bulk departm ent em ployees,
and shipping and receiving em ployees em ployed by
R espondent at its facility located at 521 W est R ose-
crans B oulevard,G ardena,C alifornia; excluding all
other em ployees,office clerical em ployees,profes-
sional em ployees,guards and supervisors as defined
in the A ct.
(b) L aying off or discharging U nit em ployees and
subcontracting or relocating their w ork,or deciding
to lay off or discharge U nit em ployees and to subcon-
tract or relocate their w ork,in retaliation for em ploy-
ees'union activities and/or their selection of the U n-
ion as their collective-bargaining representative.
(c) T ransferring, selling, relocating, rem oving, or
otherw ise alienating any of the assets, equipm ent,
NLRB-FOIA-00008568
Page 8
129 F.Supp.2d 1273,166 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2293
fixtures,inventory,supplies or w ork in progress in-
volved in U nit w ork, pursuant to any relocation or
subcontracting of U nit w ork from its G ardena,C ali-
fornia facility in retaliation for em ployees'union ac-
tivities and/or their selection of the U nion as their
collective-bargaining representative.
(d) M aking im plied threats to relocate its operations
if em ployees choose the U nion as their representa-
tive;
(e) T elling em ployees that R espondent decided to
relocate its operations to M exico because em ployees
chose the U nion as their representative;
(f) T hreatening em ployees w ith stricter enforcem ent
of w ork rules and discipline for m istakes,up to and
including term ination,if em ployees choose the U nion
as their representative;
(g) T hreatening em ployees w ith loss of benefits if
they choose the U nion as their representative;
(h) T elling em ployees that union supporters are to
blam e for the stricter enforcem ent of w ork rules,loss
of benefits, and other problem s and changes at the
C om pany;
(i) T hreatening that it w ould be futile for em ployees
to selectthe U nion as their representative;
(j) T hreatening em ployees w ith the inevitability of
strikes if they choose the U nion as their representa-
tive;
(k) C oercively interrogating em ployees about their
U nion support and sym pathy and the U nion support
and sym pathies of co-w orkers;
(1) Soliciting em ployee grievances in order to dis-
suade union support;
(m ) Prom ising to confer benefits if em ployees aban-
don their supportfor the U nion;
(n) C onferring benefits on em ployees to dissuade
union support;and
O r coercing its em ployees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the A ct, 29 U .S .C . 157.
2. R espondent, its officers, representatives, agents,
servants,em ployees,attorneys,and all other persons
acting in concertw ith itare affirm atively ordered to:
(a) R estore to the G ardena, C alifornia facility any
U nit w ork w hich has been *1281 subcontracted or
relocated after July 13, 2000, as w ell as any equip-
m ent,fixtures,inventory,supplies and w ork in pro-
gress that have been relocated or subcontracted from
that facility since July 13, 2000; and reinstate any
em ployees w ho have been laid off pursuant to any
rem oval of w ork from its G ardena,C alifornia facility
after July 12,2000.
(b) W ithin tw enty (20) days from the date of this or-
der,rescind any outstanding agreem ents to subcon-
tractU nitw ork to T ijuana,M exico;
(c) R ecognize and bargain in good faith w ith D istrict
C ouncil 8,IU E ,the Industrial D ivision of the C om -
m unications W orkers of A m erica, A FL -C IO , C L C
(IU E -C W A ) as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of the U nit em ployees about w ages,
hours and other term s and conditions of em ploym ent
of U nit em ployees,including,but not lim ited to,any
decision to subcontract or relocate U nit w ork from
R espondent's G ardena, C alifornia facility that is a
m andatory subjectof bargaining under the A ct.
(d) Post copies of the D istrict C ourt's opinion and
order,translated into Spanish,at R espondent's facility
w here R espondent's notices to its em ployees are cus-
tom arily posted; these postings to be m aintained for
the duration of the O rder, and to rem ain free of all
obstructions and defacem ents;
(e) G rant reasonable access by the R egional D irec-
tor's agents to R espondent's facility to m onitor com -
pliance w ith the posting requirem ents;
(0 W ithin tw enty (20) days of the issuance of the
order, file w ith the D istrict C ourt, w ith a copy sub-
m itted to the R egional D irector, a sw orn affidavit
from a responsible R espondent official setting forth
w ith specificity the m anner in w hich R espondent has
com plied w ith the term s of this decree.
(o) In any other m anner interfering w ith,restraining
NLRB-FOIA-00008569
Page 9
129 F.Supp.2d 1273,166 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2293
3.T hat this case rem ain on the docket of this C ourt,
and on com pliance by R espondent w ith its obliga-
tions undertaken hereto,and upon final disposition of
the m atters pending before the B oard,the Petitioner
shallcause this proceeding to be dism issed.
IT IS SO O R D E R ED .
C .D .C al.,2000.
A guayo ex rel.N .L .R .B .v.Q uadrtech C orp.
129 F.Supp.2d 1273,166 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2293
EN D O F D O C U M EN T
NLRB-FOIA-00008570
or
W estlaw ,
Page 1
147 F.3d 243,158 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2491,135 L ab.C as.P 10,177
(C ite as: 147 F .3d 243)
U nited States C ourt of A ppeals,
T hird C ircuit.
Peter W .H IR SC H ,R egional D irector of the Fourth
R egion of the N ational L abor R elations B oard,for
and on behalf of the N ational L abor R elations B oard,
A ppellant.
V.
D O R SE Y T R A IL E R S,IN C .,N orthum berland PA
Plant *A m ended per the C lerk's O rder of 12/5/97.
N o.97-7542.
A rgued M ay 21,1998.
D ecided June 5,1998.
R egional D irector of N ational L abor R elations B oard
(N L R B ) petitioned for tem porary injunction to pre-
vent em ployer from selling or alienating plant pend-
ing resolution of charges that em ployer com m itted
unfair labor practices in connection w ith closing plant
and transferring its operations to another state. T he
U nited States D istrict C ourt for the M iddle D istrict of
P en n sy lv an ia, Jam es F . M cC lu re, J., 1 9 9 7 W L '
667121 denied petition. R egional D irector appealed.
T he C ourt of A ppeals, S loviter, C ircuit Judge, held
that issuance of injunction w as just and proper, inas-
m uch as alienation of plant w oU ld prevent restoration
of plant, w hich w as rem edy already chosen by ad-
m inistrative law judge (A U ).
R em anded w ith instructions.
G reenberg, C ircuit Judge, concurred and filed opin-
ion.
. W est H eadnotes
lid L abor and E m ploym ent 231H e'-'1696(4)
231H X I1 L abor R elations
231H X 1I(I) L abor R elations B oards and Pro-
ceedings
2311-[X I1(1)1 In G eneral
231H k1696(4) k. R eview . M ost
C ited C ases
R eview of denial of m otion for tem porary injunctive
relief under N L R A is for abuse of discretion. N a-
tional L abor R elations A ct, 10(j), as am ended, 29
U .S .C .A . 160(j).
1.21 L ab or an d E m p loym en t 231H O 1694
2311-1X II L abor R elations
ceedings
231H X II(1)1 In G eneral
C ases '
D istrict court's determ ination w hether to grant tem po-
rary injunction under N L R A upon issuance of unfair
labor practices com plaint involves a tw o-fold inquiry:
(1) w hether there is reasonable cause to believe that
an unfair labor practice has occurred,and (2) w hether
an injunction w ould be just and proper. N ational L a-
bor R elations A ct, 10(j), as am ended, 29 U .S .C .A .
160(j).
al L abor and E m ploym ent 231H C ='1695(2)
231H L abO r and E m ploym ent
ceedings
231H k1695 P articular S ubjects of
R elief
E m ployer in G eneral.M ost C ited C ases
Issuance of injunction, to prevent em ployer from
alienating plant pending resolution of charges that
em ployer com m itted unfair labor practices in connec-
tion w ith closing plant and transferring its operations
to another state, w as just and proper, as required for
issuance of injunction under N L R A , notw ithstanding
delay by N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ) in
C 2010 T hom son R euters. N o C laim to O rig. U S G ov. W orks.
NLRB-FOIA-00008571
Page 2
(C ite as: 147 F.3d 243)
seeking injunction; alienation of plant w ould prevent
restoration of plant,w hich w as rem edy already cho-
sen by adm inistrative law judge (A U ).N ational L a-
bor R elations A ct, 10(j),as am ended,29 U .S.C .A .
160(j).
141 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H C r= )1694
ceedings
231H k1694 k.G rounds.M ost C ited
C ases
S tandard to be applied in determ ining w hether it
w ould be just and proper to grant tem porary injunc-
tion under N L R A should be inform ed by policies
underlying such section. N ational L abor R elations
A ct, 10(j),as am ended,29 U .S.C .A .160(j).
LsjL abor and E m ploym ent 231H = .1693
ceedings
231H k1693 k. In G eneral. M ost
C ited C ases
In enacting N L R A section authorizing court to grant
tem porary injunctive relief upon issuance of unfair
labor practices com plaint,C ongress sought to ensure
that N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ) w ould
be able to exercise effectively its ultim ate rem edial
pow er. N ational L abor R elations A ct, 10(j), as
am ended,29 U .S.C .A . 160(j).
j_61 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H C ='1693
ceedings
C ited C ases
N L R A section,authorizing court to grant tem porary
injunctive relief upon issuance of unfair labor prac-
tices com plaint,w as designed to enable N ational L a-
bor R elations B oard (N L R B ) to vindicate its ultim ate
rem edial pow er by affording lim ited interim relief in
instances w here the passage of tim e reasonably nec-
essary to adjudicate the case on its m erits convinced
both the N L R B and the federal courts that the failure
to grant such relief m ight dissipate the effective exer-
cise of such pow er.N ational L abor R elations A ct,
10(j),as am ended,29 U .S.C .A . 160(j).
1:11 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H ='1694
231H X 11 Labor R elations
231H X 11(I) L abor R elations B oards and Pro-
ceedings
23114X II(1)1 In G eneral
231H k 1 694 k.G rounds.M ostC ited
C ases
T he focus in determ ination of w hether to grant tem -
porary injunction under N L R A upon issuance of un-
fair labor practices com plaint is on the public interest
and on the unusual likelihood of ultim ate rem edial
failure by N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ).
N ational L abor R elations A ct, 10(j),as am ended,
29 U .S .C .A . 160(j).
1_81 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H =1693
ceedings
231H X I1(1)1 In G eneral
C ited C ases
T he public interest at stake in determ ination of
w hether to grant relief under N L R A section authoriz-
ing injunction w hen it is in the public interest is the
prom otion of w holesom e and m utually acceptable
labor relations and the settlem ent of labor disputes
through collective bargaining betw een em ployees and
NLRB-FOIA-00008572
Page 3
(C ite as: 147 F.3d 243)
their em ployer. N ational L abor R elations A ct,
10(j),as am ended,29 U .S.C .A .160(j).
121 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H 0=1694
ceedings
C ases
In evaluating w hether it w ould be just and proper to
grant tem porary injunction under N L R A upon issu-
ance of unfair labor practices com plaint,district court
should discuss and determ ine w hether the failure to
grant interim injunctive relief w ould be likely to pre-
vent the N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ),
acting w ith reasonable expedition,from effectively
exercising its ultim ate rem edial pow ers. N ational
L abor R elations A ct, 10(j), as am ended, 29
U .S.C .A . 160(j).
1101 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H ci1694
ceedings
C ases
In evaluation of w hether it w ould be just and proper
to grant tem porary injunction under N L R A upon is-
suance of unfair labor practices com plaint,the critical
determ ination is w hether,absent injunction,the abil-
ity of N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ) to
facilitate peaceful m anagem ent-labor negotiation w ill
be im paired; this requires an assessm ent of the likeli-
hood of harm to the bargaining process absent injunc-
tion. N ational L abor R elations A ct, 10(j), as
am ended,29 U .S.C .A .160(j).
1111 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H 1694
2311-1X 11(I) Labor R elations B oards and Pro-
ceedings
C ases
U nless there are circum stances, like the size, inti-
m acy, and longevity of the bargaining unit, w hich
indicate that the bargaining process w ill not be
harm ed,courts m ust be deferential to determ ination
of N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ) that the
integrity of the bargaining process needs interim pro-
tection through issuance of tem porary injunction un-
der N L R A .N ational L abor R elations A ct, 10(j),as
am ended,29 U .S.C .A . 160(j).
1121 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H =1696(1)
231H X 11(1) L abor R elations B oards and Pro-
ceedings
231H k1696(1) k. In G eneral.
M ostC ited C ases
A nalysis of w hether to grant tem porary injunction
under N L R A m ust be guided by the particular facts in
each case.N ational L abor R elations A ct, 10(j),as
am ended,29 U .S.C .A . 160(j).
1131 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H -7

1697
23 1H X II(I) L abor R elations B oards and Pro-
ceedings
231H X 11(1)1 In G eneral
231H k 1692 Interim R elief
231H k1697 k.O peration and E ffect.
M ostC ited C ases
T em porary injunction granted pursuant to N L R A
upon issuance of unfair labor practice charges is lim -
ited to six m onths w hen a m atter is pending before
N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ). N ational
L ab or R elation s A ct, 1 0 (j), as am en d ed , 2 9
NLRB-FOIA-00008573
Page 4
(C ite as: 147 F.3d 243)
U .S.C .A . 160(j).
*245 E llen A .Farrell,Judith K atz,Jaym e L .Sophir
(A rgued),N .L .R .B .W ashington,D C ,for A ppellant.
M ichael S.M itchell (A rgued),Fisher & Phillips N ew
O rleans,L A ,for A ppellee.
Stephen A .Y okich (A rgued),U nited A uto W orkers,
Intern.U nion W ashington,D C ,A ttorney for A m icus-
A ppellant.
B efore: S L O V IT E R ; G R E E N B E R G and G IB -
SO N ,-121='*C ircuit Judges.
F N * H on. John R . G ibson, U nited S tates
Senior C ircuit Judge for the U nited States
C ourt of A ppeals for the E ighth C ircuit,sit-
ting by designation.
O PIN IO N O F T H E C O U R T
SL O V IT ER ,C ircuitJudge.
A ppellant,Peter W .H irsch,D irector of R egion Four,
on behalf of the N ational L abor R elations B oard
("N L R B " or "the B oard"),appeals from the district
court's order denying a tem porary injunction under
10(j) of the N ational L abor R elations A ct ("N L R A "),
codified at 29 U .S .C . 160(j). T he injunction w as
sought pending the resolution by the N L R B of unfair
labor practice charges against appellee D orsey T rail-
ers Inc. T he district court concluded that a 10(j)
injunction w ould not be "just and proper," the statu-
tory standard for an injunction under the N L R A .T he

B oard tim ely appealed. T he International U nion of
U nited A utom obile,A erospace and A gricultural Im -
plem ent W orkers of A m erica,L ocal 1868 ("U A W "
or "the union"),w hich is the bargaining representa-
tive of the w orkers affected by the denial of injunc-
tive relief,has filed a brief am icus curiae in support
of the B oard's appeal.
W e have jurisdiction under 28 U .S .C . 1291,
1292(a)(1) and 29 U .S.C .160(j).O ur review of the
denial of a 10(j) injunction is for abuse of discre-
tion, see E isenberg v. L enape P roducts, Inc., 781
F.2d 999,1003 (3d C ir.1986),and w e have held w e
m ay reverse the denial of a 10(j) injunction if the
factual findings do not "substantially relate to the
conclusion reached" by the districtcourt. K obel! v.
Suburban L ines, Inc.,

731 F .2d 1076, 1092
(3d
C ir.1984).
I.
T his appeal centers on the circum stances surrounding
the D ecem ber 1995 closure of a plant in N orthum ber-
land, Pennsylvania, that once em ployed 200 U A W
w orkers w ho m anufactured dum p and flatbed trailers
for D orsey.*246 T he facts set forth below are taken
from the record and,unless noted,are not in dispute,
although the exact dates are not alw ays clear.In Feb-
ruary 1995,D orsey and the U A W began negotiating
a new .C ollective B argaining A greem ent (C B A ) be-
cause the prior C B A w as due to expire in M arch
1995. T he prim ary issues concerned overtim e and
subcontracting.D orsey w arned that if no agreem ent
could be reached or if the union w ere to strike,D or-
sey w ould close the plant. A pp. at 47-49. N egotia-
tions w ere conducted betw een February and M ay but
the parties w ere unable to reach agreem ent on a new
contract.
T he union,began a strike on June 26,1995,to protest
alleged unfair labor practices of D orsey.A pp.at 50.
O n June 30, 1995, the union filed the first of four
unfair labor practice charges against the em ployer.In
Septem ber 1995,D orsey began to negotiate for the
purchase of a new plant in C artersville,G eorgia,and
on O ctober 5, 1995, reached a basic agreem ent in
principle to purchase the plant.A pp.at145-46.It had
concluded that it w ould be to its financial benefit to
operate the G eorgia plant rather than the N orthum -
berland facility.A pp.at 138-41.O n O ctober 9,1995,
D orsey notified the union of its im pending purchase
and its intention to m ove the N orthum berland w ork
there.H ow ever,it also offered to continue to bargain
over the "effects of that decision and the decision
itself." A pp. at 189. T hereafter, the union uncondi-
tionally offered to com e back to w ork but by then
D orsey w as seeking substantial concessions.A pp.at
164. F urther negotiations proved fruitless. D orsey
described the union's concessions on overtim e as "too
little too late." A pp.at66;177.
O n N ovem ber 9,1995,D orsey form ally notified the
union of its decision to close the N orthum berland
plant and m ove its operations to G eorgia. A t that
tim e, D orsey began m oving the plant equipm ent.
A pp.at 181.O n N ovem ber 16,1995,the union filed
the fourth of its unfair labor charges against D orsey
NLRB-FOIA-00008574
Page 5
(C ite as: 147 F.3d 243)
alleging that D orsey im properly transferred w ork to
the G eorgia plant.T he union asked the B oard to seek
tem porary injunctive relief under 10(j), but the
B oard did not act on the request at that tim e.D orsey
shut dow n the plant on D ecem ber 29,1995,and has
attem pted to sell it since then.A pp.at 252-53.
T here w as a lapse in D orsey's operations resulting
from the m ove,and it began its G eorgia operations in
M arch 1996. W hen it determ ined that it could not
m anufacture at the new plant all of the trucks that it
had m anufactured at N orthum berland, D orsey de-
cided it w ould lim it its G eorgia plant to the m anufac-
ture of flatbed trailers. In July 1996 it purchased a
South C arolina facility to build dum p trailers,previ-
ously m anufactured in N orthum berland.
D orsey estim ates its total costs of m oving the N orth-
um berland operations to G eorgia and South C arolina
exceeded $900,000, app. at 197, and the costs of
m aintaining the closed N orthum berland plant for the
first six m onths of 1997 to be $130,000,app.at 198,
and that continued m aintenance costs continue to be a
terrible drain.
T he B oard issued a consolidated com plaint in A ugust
1996 (later am ended in O ctober 1996) charging D or-
sey w ith num erous violations of the N L R A ,including
threatening em ployees w ith closure of the plant if the
w orkers called a strike,refusing to provide com pany
inform ation necessary for bargaining, unilaterally
im plem enting a new attendance policy,and refusing
to fairly bargain regarding the transfer of w ork to
G eorgia. F ollow ing a three-day trial in N ovem ber
1996,the A dm inistrative L aw Judge issued a com -
prehensive fifty-six page decision on D ecem ber 1,
1997,finding in large part that D orsey com m itted the
alleged unfair labor 'practices. See A U J D ecision, at
52. T he A ll's decision ordered a rem edy that in-
cluded the restoration of the N orthum berland plant.
Id. at 54-56.D orsey filed exceptions to the decision
on January 29, 1998, and the m atter is currently
pending before the B oard. W e w ere advised that
briefing w as com pleted recently.
A lthough the union had asked the B oard to file a re-
quest for a 10(j) injunction as early as N ovem ber
1995,the B oard did not file such a petition w ith the
district court until January 27,1997.In its Petition for
a 10(j) injunction,the B oard sought to prevent*247
D orsey from selling or alienating the plant before the
B oard ruled on the m erits of the underlying unfair
labor charges. It sought to m aintain the status quo
and thereby preserve the rem edy of restoration should
the B oard decide to so order.
F ollow ing a hearing on July 24, 1997, the district
court denied the petition request.A lthough the court
found that there w as reasonable cause to believe that
D orsey had com m itted the unfair labor charges, it
also found that 10(j) relief w ould not be "just and
proper" because: (1) the request w as untim ely m ade,
noting the fourteen-m onth delay in seeking 10(j)
relief; (2) the m aintenance of the vacant plant w as a
cash drain on D orsey,especially in light of the prior
expenses of relocation; (3) the w orkers in D orsey's
G eorgia and South C arolina plants could lose their
jobs should restoration be ordered; (4) the vast m ajor-
ity of the form er N orthum berland w orkers had found
new jobs; (5) the sale of the plant w ould bring new
jobs to the region; and (6) the B oard could order D or-
sey to build a new plant and em ploy the N orthum ber-
land w orkers,if the plantw ere sold.
1211131A district court's determ ination w hether to is-
sue tem porary injunctive relief under 10(j) involves
'a tw o-fold inquiry: (1) w hether there is reasonable
cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has oc-
curred; and (2) w hether an injunction w ould be just
and proper. See P ascarell v. V ibra Screw Inc., 904
F .2d 874, 877 (3d C ir.1990) (citation om itted);
Suburban Lines, 731 F.2d at 1078 (interim relief un-
der 10(j) m ay be granted w ithout show ing irrepara-
ble harm or a likelihood of success on the m erits,the
ordinary requisites of an injunction).B ecause D orsey
does not dispute the district court's finding that the
B oard has satisfied the "reasonable cause" inquiry,
the only question is w hether the B oard dem onstrated
that the issuance of an injunction w ould be "just and
proper."
01151161171181 T he standard to be applied by a dis-
trict court in determ ining w hether granting tem porary
relief pursuant to 10(j) is just and proper should be
inform ed by the policies underlying 10(j). See
Lenape P roducts, 781 F.2d at 1003 .,Suburban Lines,
731 F.2d at 1090-91."C ongress sought to ensure that
the B oard w ould be able to exercise effectively its
ultim ate rem edial pow er." Lenape P roducts, 781 F.2d
at 1003. S ection 10(j) "w as designed to enable the
NLRB-FOIA-00008575
Page 6
(C ite as: 147 F.3d 243)
L abor B oard to vindicate its ultim ate rem edial pow er
by affording lim ited interim relief in instances w here
the passage of tim e reasonably necessary to adjudi-
cate the case on its m erits convinced both the B oard
and the federal 'courts that the failure to grant such
relief m ight dissipate the effective exercise of such
pow er." Suburban Lines, 731 F.2d at 1091.T hus,the
focus in a 10(j) determ ination is on the public inter-
est, Vibra Screw , 904 F.2d at 876, and "the unusual
likelihood ... of ultim ate rem edial failure" by the
N LR B . Suburban Lines, 731 F.2d at 1091 n.26 (em -
phasis in original)."T he public interest at stake is the
prom otion of w holesom e and m utually acceptable
labor relations and the settlem ent of labor disputes
through collective bargaining betw een em ployees and
their em ployer." Vibra Screw , 904 F.2d at 876 (cita-
tion and quotation m arks om itted).
191110111111121 In evaluating w hether to issue an
injunction under the "just and proper" prong,a dis-
trict court "should discuss and determ ine w hether the
failure to grant interim injunctive relief w ould be
likely to prevent the B oard, acting w ith reasonable
expedition, from effectively exercising its ultim ate
rem edialpow ers." Suburban Lines, 731 F.2d at 1091-
92."[T ]he critical determ ination is w hether,absent
an injunction,the B oard's ability to facilitate peaceful
m anagem ent-labor negotiation w ill be im paired."
Vibra Screw , 904 F .2d at 879. T his requires an as-
sessm ent of "the likelihood of harm to the bargaining
process" absent an injunction. E isenberg v.W elling-
ton H all N ursing H om e,Inc., 651 F.2d 902,907 (3d
C ir.1981)."U nless there are circum stances,like the
size,intim acy and longevity of the bargaining unit,
w hich indicate that the bargaining process w ill not be
harm ed, courts m ust be deferential to the B oard's
determ ination that the integrity of the process needs
interim protection." Vibra Screw , 904 F.2d at 879 n.
7.T he 10(j) analysis m ust be guided by the particu-
lar facts in each case. See *248E isenberg v. H artz
M ountain C orp., 519 F.2d 138,142 (3d C ir.1975).
T he B oard argues that the failure to issue the injunc-
tion in this case clearly im pairs the "B oard's ability to
facilitate peaceful m anagem ent-labor negotiation,"
Vibra Screw ,
904 F .2d at 879. because, absent an
injunction, D orsey\ could sell the plant before the
B oard rules upon the unfair labor charges. T his
w ould render the B oard's ultim ate rem edial pow ers
toothless.The A U J has already determ ined that resto-
ration of the plant is a proper rem edy.A lthough D or-
sey argues that restoration is not a proper rem edy
under these circum stances, but see C oronet F oods,
Inc.v.N LR B ,
981 F.2d 1284 (D .C .C ir.1993) (court,
per then Judge, now Justice, R uth B ader G insburg,
enforced B oard order requiring em ployer to restore
trucking departm ent),w e need not decide that issue
now .Instead,this appeal concerns the district court's
exercise of its discretion.It is evident to us that the
district court's failure to grant interim injunctive relief
to ensure the availability of the plant jeopardizes the
B oard's ability to effectively exercise its ultim ate
rem edial pow ers.T he alienation of the plant by D or-
sey w ould elim inate that rem edy entirely.U nder the
standards articulated in Suburban Lines, 731 F.2d at
1091-92.this risk is sufficient to satisfy the "just and
proper" prong for injunctive relief
In addition,in denying injunctive relief,the district
court relied upon its belief that the B oard has the
pow er to order D orsey to build a new plant if the
B oard determ ined that restoration of the N orthum ber-
land plant w as the proper rem edy for the unfair labor
charges. D orsey cites no legal support, and signifi-
cantly the B oard argues it does not have such w ide
pow er. It is at least plausible that had the district
court recognized that it w as likely that a restoration
rem edy w ould be unavailable absent an injunction,
the district court m ay have been persuaded to issue
the interim relief.
A nother basis for the district court's opinion, that a
vast m ajority of the w orkers from the N orthum ber-
land plant had found new jobs,is unsupported on this
record.T his conclusion w as taken from a new spaper
article that itself speculates as to this figure.D orsey's
counsel conceded at oral argum ent that it neither pre-
sented nor has any evidence of the num ber of its for-
m er em ployees w ho are no longer available.E ven if
the district court's conclusion w ere accurate,there is
no inform ation w hether the new jobs and pay are
com parable.In any event,the possible em ploym ent
of the form er em ployees does not m itigate the need
for a 10(j) injunction.
113] M oreover, the district court's denial of relief
em phasized the cash drain and financial burden of
m aintenance of the N orthum berland plant,and notes
the negative im pact caused by the relocation. T his
fails to take into account that the im pact w as of D or-
sey's m aking.T he B oard's counsel points to evidence
that show s that the burden is m inor for a com pany of
NLRB-FOIA-00008576
Page 7
147 F.3d 243,158 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2491,135 L ah.C as.P 10,177
(C ite as: 147 F .3d 243)
D orsey's incom e and assets.A lso significant in that
respect is that in this circuit a 10(j) injunction is
lim ited to six m onths w hen a m atter is pending before
the B oard. See H artz M ountain, 519 F.2d at144.
Finally,although w e recognize that the B oard did not
petition for a 10(j) injunction as early as it m ight
have,the delay should not be dispositive in determ in-
ing w hether to grant injunctive relief. T he district
court acknow ledged that "delay alone is not grounds
for denying an injunction," op. at 249, but it is un-
clear w hether its concern over the delay influenced
the court's rejection of the injunction.D orsey m oved
quickly from its decision to m ove the operations in
the fall of 1995, to the closure of the plant on D e-
cem ber 29,1995.E ven if the B oard had not delayed
until January 1997 to file the 10(j) petition, it is
unlikely that it w ould have been able to seek the in-
junction and obtain a hearing before the equipm ent
had been transferred and the plant closed. A s w e
noted in Vibra Screw , "T he B oard needs tim e to do a
thorough investigation before it even requests the [
10(j) I injunction." 904 F.2d at 881. See also A guayo
v.Tom co C arburetor C o., 853 F .2d 744, 750 (9th
C ir.1988) (delay is only significant if the harm has
occurred and the parties cannot be returned to the
status quo; the B oard needs a reasonable period of
tim e to investigate and *249 deliberate before it de-
cides to bring a section 10(j) action)

overruled on
other grounds,M iller v.C alifornia P acific M ed.C tr.,
19 F.3d 449,457 (9th C ir.1994).
A lthough the protracted delay is notentirely justified ;
it is insufficient under these facts to overcom e the
prim ary consideration in evaluating the just and
proper standard: that of safeguarding the B oard's re-
m edial pow ers.U sing the B oard's delay as the basis
to deny the requested injunctive relief punishes the
w ronged em ployees for the B oard's belated action,an
unacceptable outcom e. See G ottfried v.M ayco P las-
tics, 472 F.Supp.1161,1168 (E .D .M ich.1979), affd,
615 F.2d 1360 (6th C ir.1980). C f N LR B v.J.H .R ut-
ter-Rex M fg.C o., 396 U .S.258,264-65,90 S.C t.417,
24 L .E d.2d 405 (1969) ("the B oard is not required to
place the consequences of its ow n delay,even if in-
ordinate,upon w ronged em ployees to the benefit of
w rongdoing em ployers").
D uring the oral argum ent counsel for the B oard ad-
vised this court that the issuance of a 10(j) injunc-
tion invariably prom pts the B oard to review the A U J
decision on appeal because the B oard is aw are of the
lim ited six-m onth duration of the injunction.

See
H artz M ountain, 519 F.2d at 144.Indeed,the B oard
has adopted a regulation requiring it to hear expedi-
tiously and give priority to a com plaint w hich is the
subject of a 10(j) injunction.

See 29 C .F.R .
102.94.
For the reasons set forth, w e w ill rem and this case
and direct the district court to order interim relief
under 10(j).'
FN I.A lthough w e do not preclude D orsey
from raising on rem and the appropriate start-
ing date of the 10(j) injunction,it is im por-
tant to note that it never raised that issue in
its brief.O ur concurring colleague suggests
that the B oard has already obtained the relief
it is seeking through the 10(j) injunction.
In fact, that has not occurred as the union
and the form er em ployees have not received
the benefit of the B oard's expedited consid-
eration thatoccurs upon issuance of a 10(j)
injunction.
G R E E N B E R G ,C ircuitJudge,concurring:
I join in the m ajority opinion but point out the fol-
low ing. T he B oard seeks an injunction to prevent
D orsey from selling or alienating the plant before the
B oard rules on the m erits of the unfair labor charges.
If the district court had entered the injunction on A u-
gust 26,1997,w hen it instead denied it,the injunc-
tion already w ould have,expired under the six-m onth
lim itation rule w e adopted in E isenberg v. H artz
M ountain C orp., 519 F.2d 138,144 (3d C ir.1975).O f
course, in that circum stance the B oard w ould have
been required to hear the unfair labor practices com -
plaintbefore itexpeditiously on a priority basis.
In fact, it is undisputed that D orsey shut dow n the
plant on D ecem ber 29, 1995; and w hile it has at-
tem pted to sell the facility,it has been unable to do
so.M oreover,its inability to sell the plant has been
attributable at least in part to the B oard's intervention,
as the B oard notified a potential purchaser that if it
acquired the plant it m ight incur successor liability
for D orsey's alleged unfair labor practices.T he noti-
fication understandably led to the potential sale col-
lapsing. In reality, therefore, the m ere fact that the
B oard brought the unfair labor practices charge has
NLRB-FOIA-00008577
Page 8
(C ite as: 147 F.3d 243)
acted as a us pendens on the property. T hus, even
w ithout an injunction having been entered,the status
quo w ith respect to the alienation of the plant has
been m aintained for a period alm ost five-fold that
w hich in H artz M ountain w e held could be required.
T he m ajority indicates that its opinion does "not pre-
clude D orsey from raising on rem and the appropriate
starting date of the 10(j) injunction." Slip op.at 249
n.1.I,of course,agree.I w rite separately m erely to
em phasize that as I understand the m ajority's opinion
it does not preclude D orsey from arguing that the
starting date should be A ugust 26,1997,so that the
injunction already has expired.A fter all,the B oard in
a sense already has obtained the relief it is seeking in
these proceedings. I, how ever, do not explore the
point further as the parties have not briefed the start-
ing date issue on this appeal.
C .A .3 (Pa.),1998.
H irsch v.D orsey T railers,Inc.
147 F .3d 243, 158 L .R .R .M . (B N A ) 2491, 135
Lab.C as.P 10,177
NLRB-FOIA-00008578
W estam
Page 1
66 F.Supp.2d 346,161 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2112,161 L .R .k.M .(13N A ) 2119,137 L ab.C as.P 10,381,137 L ab.C as.P
10,387
(C ite as: 66 F .Supp.2d 346)
U nited States D istrict C ourt,
N .D .N ew Y ork.
Sandra D U N B A R , R egional D irector of the T hird
R egion of the N ational L abor R elations B oard,for
and on B ehalf of the N A T IO N A L L A B O R R E L A -
T IO N S B O A R D ,Petitioner,
V.
C A R R IE R C O R PO R A T IO N ,R espondent.
N o.99-C V -26.
Feb.5,1999.
O rder D enying R econsiderationFeb.19,1999.
N ational L abor R elations B oard ( N L R B ) sought to
enjoin m anufacturer from taking further action to-
w ard plant relocation. T he D istrict C ourt, M ordue, J.,
held that: (1) proposed addendum to collective bar-
gaining agreem ent w as perm issive subject of bargain-
ing based on alteration to scope of bargaining unit;
(2) m anufacturer's insistence to point of im passe on
addendum as condition for agreem ent on relocation
constituted reasonable cause to find unfair labor prac-
tice; and (3) injunction w as just and proper rem edy.
M otion granted.
W est H eadnotes
al L ab or an d E m p loym en t 231H = 1694
ceedings
C ases
D istrict court, in considering N ational L abor R ela-
tions B oard (N L R B ) petition for tem porary relief or
restraining order,based on alleged unfair labor prac-
tice, is required to determ ine w hether there is reason-
able cause to believe that an unfair labor practice has
been com m itted and,if so,w hether requested relief is
just and proper. N ational L abor R elations A ct,
jJ L abcir and E m ploym ent 231H C =1694
2311-IX II L abor R elations
231H X I1(1) L abor R elations B oards and Pro-
ceedings
23IH X 11(1)1 In G eneral
C ases
A s to w hether there is reasonable cause to believe
that an unfair labor practice has been com m itted un-
der N L R A , petitioner is not required to show that an
unfair labor practice occurred, or that precedents
governing case are in perfect harm ony, but only that
there is reasonable cause to believe that a N ational
L abor R elations B oard decision finding an unfair
labor practice w ill be enforced by a C ourt of A ppeals.
N ational L abor R elations A ct, 10(j), as am ended,
29 U .S.C .A . 160(j).
J l L abor and E m ploym ent 231H C = 1694
231H X 11 L abor R elations
ceedings
231H k1692 Interim R elief '
C ases
Finding of reasonable cause that unfair labor practice
has occurred, as required to support injunctive relief
under N L R A ,is satisfied w here N ational L abor R ela-
tions B oard (N L R B ) has com e forw ard w ith evidence
sufficient to spell out a likelihood of violation. N a-
tional L abor R elations A ct, 10(j), as am ended, 29
U .S.C .A . 160(j).
E ll L abor and E m ploym ent 231H C =1696(2)
2010 T hom son R euters. N o C laim to O rig. U S G ov. W orks.
NLRB-FOIA-00008579
Page 2
66 F.Supp.2d 346,161 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2112,161 L .R .k.M .(B N A ) 2119,137 L ab.C as.P 10,381,137 L ab.C as.P
10,387
23 1H X II Labor R elations
ceedings
231H k1696(2) k. E vidence in
G eneral.M ostC ited C ases
In determ ining w hether there is reasonable cause to
believe unfair labor practice has been com m itted,
district court need not resolve conflicting evidence if
facts exist w hich could support the N ational L abor
R elations B oard's (N L R B ) theory; B oard's version is
given benefit of the doubt.N ational L abor R elations
A ct, 10(j),as am ended,29 U .S.C .A .160(j).
1..51 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H ='1694
2311-IX 11(1) Labor R elations B oards and Pro-
ceedings
231H X 11(1)1 In G eneral
C ases
Injunctive relief as rem edy for unfair labor practice
under N L R A is just and proper w here serious and
pervasive unfair labor practices threaten to render
B oard's process totally ineffective by precluding a
m eaningful final rem edy,or w here interim relief is
only effective m eans to preserve or restore the status
quo as it existed before onset of violations.N ational
L ab o r R elatio n s A ct, 1 0 (j), as am en d ed , 2 9
U .S.C .A . 160(j).
J_6_1 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H C = .1694
231H X 11 Labor R elations'
ceedings
2311-1X 11(1)1 In G eneral
C ases
In review ing an application for injunctive relief under
N L R A ,district court m ust consider general equitable
criteria such as w hether irreparable injury m ay result
absent an injunction, and w hether a balancing of
hardships supports an injunction. N ational L abor
R elations A ct, 10(j), as am ended, 29 U .S.C .A .
160(j).
E L 1 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H C =3.1138
231H k1123 Particular Subjects of B argain-
ing
231H k1138 k. W ork A ssignm ents;
T ransfers.M ostC ited C ases
R elocation of w ork w as m andatory subject of collec-
tive bargaining, absent evidence that union had
w aived its right to bargain issue.N ational L abor R e-
lations A ct, 1 et seq., as am ended, 29 U .S.C .A .
151 etseq.
A lL abor and E m ploym ent 231H 'E .1286
231H X II(E ) L abor C ontracts
231H k1268 C onstruction
231H k1286 k. W aiver. M ost C ited
C ases
W aiver of statutorily protected rights is disfavored by
national labor policy; only clear and unm istakable
w aiver w ill be recognized by courts.N ational L abor
R elations A ct, 1 et seq.,as am ended,29 U .S.C .A .
151 etseq.
191 L abor and E m ploym ent 23111 0=1110
231H X 1I L abor R elations
231H X I1(C ) C ollective B argaining
231H k1108 R ightto B argain C ollectively
231H k1110 k.W aiver or L oss of R ight.
M ostC ited C ases
N ational L abor R elations B oard's (N L R B ) decision
on question of w aiver of collective bargaining rights
is accorded significant deference and w ill not be
overturned if supported by substantial evidence.N a-
NLRB-FOIA-00008580
Page 3
66 F.Supp.2d 346,161 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2112,161 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2119,137 L ab.C as.P 10,381,137 L ab.C as.P
10,387
tional L abor R elations A ct, 1 et seq.,as am ended,
29 U .S.C .A . 151 etseq.
1101 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H =1286
2311-1X II(E) Labor C ontracts
231H k1268 C onstruction
231H k1286 k. W aiver. M ost C ited
C ases
In determ ining w hether w aiver of collective bargain-
ing rights has occurred, district court considers, in
addition to agreem ent itself,past practices and bar-
gaining history of parties.N ational L abor R elations
A ct, 1 et seq., as am ended, 29 U .S .C .A . 151 et
seq.
1111 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H =1126
23 1H L abor and E m ploym ent
2311-IX II Labor R elations
231H 1c1123 Particular Subjects of B argain-
ing
231H k1126 k.Perm issive Subjects in
E m ployer's proposed addendum to collective bargain-
ing agreem ent w as perm issive subject of bargaining,
w here proposal w ould prohibit participation in strikes
by w orkers at specific facility,and had differentexpi-
ration date from m ain agreem ent; proposal altered
scope of bargaining unit. N ational L abor R elations
A ct, 1 et seq., as am ended, 29 U .S.C .A . 151 et
seq.
Illj L abor and E m ploym ent 231H =1126
231H X 11(C ) C ollective B argaining
231H k1123 Particular Subjects of B argain-
ing
231H k1126 k.Perm issive Subjects in
Scope of a bargaining unit is a perm issive subject of
collective bargaining.N ational L abor R elations A ct,
1 et seq.,as am ended,29 U .S.C .A .151 et seq.
L abor and E m ploym ent 231H

a .ll
'1483(1)
231H k1479 R efusalto B argain
231H k1483 C onduct C onstituting R e-
fusal
231H k1483(1) k. In G eneral. M ost
C ited C ases
(Form erly 232A k389.1 L abor R elations)
L abor and E m ploym ent 231H ---1500
231H k1493 U nfair Practices of E m ployees
or L abor O rganizations
231H k1500 k.R efusalto B argain.M ost
C ited C ases
(Form erly 232A k395.3 L abor R elations)
P arty to a collective bargaining agreem ent cannot
insist to point of im passe upon a perm issive proposal
such that acceptance of perm issive proposal becom es
a condition precedent to agreem ent on a m andatory
issue. N ational L abor R elations A ct, 1 et seq., as
am ended,29 U .S.C .A . 151 et seq.
J14[ L abor and E m ploym ent 231H C =1696(3)
ceedings
2311-1X 11(1)1 In G eneral
231H kI696 Proceedings
23 I H k1696(3) k. W eight and
Sufficiency in G eneral.M ostC ited C ases
(Form erly 2324518 L abor R elations)
E vidence that em ployer had insisted to point of im -
passe on addendum to collective bargaining agree-
m ent w hich altered scope of bargaining unit,a per-
m issive bargaining subject,as a condition for agree-
m ent on planned plant relocation,a m andatory bar-
gaining subject,constituted reasonable cause to con-
clude that em ployer had com m itted unfair labor prac-
NLRB-FOIA-00008581
Page 4
10,387
tice under N L R A . N ational L abor R elations A ct,
ceedings
231H k1696(1) k. in G eneral.
M ostC ited C ases
D elay by N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ),in
seeking injunctive relief for em ployer's alleged fail-
ure to bargain in good faith concerning planned plant
relocation,did not unduly prejudice em ployer,so as
to preclude grant of such relief; relocation w as not
yet com plete and thus status quo could still be pre-
served,and em ployer had know n of union's charges
and B oard's investigation before going forw ard,thus
any prejudice w as of its ow n m aking.N ational L abor
R elations A ct, 10(j), as am ended, 29 U .S.C .A .
160(j).
1151 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H '1695(2)
231H X II(J) L abor R elations B oards and Pro-
ceedings
231H X II(01 In G eneral
R elief
E m ployer in G eneral.M ostC ited C ases
N ational L abor R elations B oard's (N L R B ) requested
injunction against em ployer's planned plant reloca-
tion w as just and proper rem edy for em ployer's al-
leged failure to bargain in good faith concerning re-
location,since failure to grant injunction w ould result
in rapid progress of relocation effort and consequent
im possibility of ever restoring ,status quo.N ational
L ab o r R elatio n s A ct, 1 0 (j), as am en d ed , 2 9
U .S .C .A . 160(j).
1161 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H =1696(1)
231H X II Labor R elations
ceedings
23111k1696(1) k. In G eneral.
M ostC ited C ases
D elay in seeking injunctive relief for unfair labor
practice, by itself, is not a determ inative factor in
w hether such relief is just and proper under N L R A ,
but m ay be significant w here it leads to a change in
circum stances affecting appropriateness of requested
relief. N ational L abor R elations A ct, 10(j), as
am ended,29 U .S.C .A .160(j).
1171 L abor and E m ploym ent 231H ':1696(1)
1181 L ab or an d E m p loym en t 231H 1695(2)
231H X I1 L abor R elations
231H X 1I(11 L abor R elations B oards and Pro-
ceedings
R elief
E m ployer in G eneral.M ost C ited C ases
O rder that em ployer bargain in good faith concerning
planned plant relocation w as proper even though it
accom panied injunction against sam e relocation;
there w as no evidence that em ployer did not intend to
pursue relocation plan,and order served interests of
both w orkers,by attem pting to rem ove uncertainty,
and em ployer,w hich w as losing m oney due to delay
in resolving issue. N ational L abor R elations A ct,
10(j),as am ended,29 U .S.C .A .160(j).
*348 Sandra D unbar,R egional D irector,N .L .R .B .,
T hird R egion, B uffalo, N Y (M ichael J. Israel, of
counsel),for Petitioner.
B ond,Schoeneck & K ing,L L P,Syracuse,N Y (L ouis
P.D iL orenzo,of counsel),for R espondent.
B litm an & K ing, L L P , S yracuse, N Y (Jam es R .
L aV aute,of counsel),for Sheet M etal W orkers,In-
NLRB-FOIA-00008582
Page 5
10,387
tern.A ss'n,L ocal527,A m icus C uriae.
M E M O R A N D U M -D E C ISIO N A N D O R D E R
M O R D U E ,D istrictJudge.
IN T R O D U C T IO N
Petitioner Sandra D unbar,R egional D irector of the
T hird R egion of the N ational L abor R elations B oard
("B oard"), petitions under section 10(j) of the N a-
tional L abor R elations A ct ("A ct"), 29 U .S .C .
160(j),for an injunction enjoining respondent from
refusing to bargain in good faith w ith Sheet M etal
W orkers International A ssociation, L ocal N o. 527
("union") and from taking any action in furtherance
of its decision to relocate w ork from its T R -1 facility
in Syracuse,N ew Y ork to H untersville,N orth C aro-
lina,w ithout first bargaining to a good-faith im passe
or agreem ent w ith the union over the proposed relo-
cation decision and its effects upon unitem ployees.
T his court denied petitioner's application for a tem po-
rary restraining order on January 11,1999.
O n January 19,1999 this C ourt granted leave to the
union to subm it a brief in support of the petition as
am icus curiae.
T he C ourt heard oral argum ent on the petition on
February 2,1999.A n order adm itting M ichael Israel
to appear pro hac vice on behalf of the petitioner w as
granted from the bench atoralargum ent.
BA CK G RO U N D
I. The C harge
O n M ay 1, 1998 the union filed a "C harge A gainst
E m ployer" against respondent claim ing that respon-
dent "has failed and refused to bargain in good faith
w ith the charging party over the decision to contract
out bargaining unit w ork and the decision to relocate
bargaining unit w ork, from building T R -1." P eti-
tioner subsequently determ ined that respondent's al-
leged conduct relative to contracting out bargaining
unitw ork did notconstitute an unfair labor practice.
II.C om plaint
O n D ecem ber 7,1998 the petitioner filed a com plaint
, and notice of hearing alleging that since M arch 1,
1998 respondent "has *349 insisted,as a condition of
agreeing not to relocate certain U nit w ork perform ed
at its T R -1 facility in Syracuse,N ew Y ork,that the
U nion agree to the provisions of an addendum to the
parties'collective-bargaining agreem ent *** provid-
ing for separate term s and conditions of em ploym ent
for certain U nit em ployees in R espondent's T R -1
facility and effectively rem oving those em ployees
from the U nit." Petitioner further alleges that the re-
location of unit w ork is a m andatory subject for pur-
poses of collective bargaining,that the addendum is
not a m andatory subject for purposes of collective
bargaining, and that on M ay 11, 1998, respondent
bargained to im passe.T he com plaint avers that on the
sam e date,respondent decided to relocate the w ork
perform ed by certain unit em ployees in the T R -1
facility to a new facility located in H untersville,
N orth C arolina,notw ithstanding that it had failed to
reach a bona fide im passe in bargaining about the
relocation decision.T he com plaint further states that
beginning on or about O ctober 11,1998,respondent
began to im plem ent its decision to relocate the w ork
perform ed by certain unit em ployees in the T R -1
facility "by, but not lim ited to, acquiring real prop-
erty and a building in N orth C arolina,as w ell as m ak-
ing future plans to com plete its im plem entation of its
relocation decision by A ugust 15,1999." Petitioner
concludes thatby the alleged conduct,respondenthas
been failing and refusing to bargain collectively w ith
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of
its em ployees,in violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5)
of the A ct, 29 U .S.C . 158(a)(1), (5).
T he com plaint seeks an injunction ordering respon-
dent to "cease and desist from relocating U nit w ork
from its T R -1 facility located in Syracuse,N ew Y ork,
and to restore all U nit w ork w hich it has already re-
m oved,or w ill rem ove in the future,back to its T R -1
facility located in Syracuse,N ew Y ork as it existed
on M ay. 11, 1998." T he com plaint further seeks an
order requiring respondent to provide certain docu-
m ents on request.
III. P etition
T he petition sets forth the sam e allegations as are
contained in the com plaint. It states that petitioner
has reasonable cause to believe that respondent has
NLRB-FOIA-00008583
Page 6
10,387
been failing and refusing to bargain collectively and
in good faith w ith the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of its em ployees in violation of section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the A ct and that the unfair labor
practices affect com m erce w ithin the m eaning of sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the A ct, 29 U .S.C . 152(6), (7).
It further states that it m ay be fairly anticipated that,
unless enjoined,respondent w ill continue to engage
in such conduct w ith the result that em ployees w ill
continue to be deprived of their fundam ental right to
be represented for purposes of collective bargaining
as provided for in the A ct.
Petitioner seeks an order enjoining respondent from
failing or refusing to bargain in good faith w ith the
union regarding its decision to relocate w ork from the
T R -1 facility in S yracuse to H untersville, N orth
C arolina,including restricting bargaining to,and in-
sisting to im passe upon,the adoption of respondent's
proposal to alter the scope of the existing collective-
bargaining unit. It further seeks an order enjoining
respondent from taking any action including con-
struction or preparation of,or procurem ent or instal-
lation of equipm ent for, its facility in H untersville,
N orth C arolina, or rem oving or relocating any fix-
tures,m achinery,equipm ent,inventory,raw m ateri-
als,or w ork/production orders,or laying off or term i-
nating any unit em ployees at its T R -1 facility on its
Syracuse, N ew Y ork cam pus, in furtherance of its
decision to relocate w ork to H untersville, N orth
C arolina w ithout first bargaining to a good-faith im -
passe or agreem ent w ith the union over the proposed
relocation decision and its effects upon unit em ploy-
ees. P etitioner requests that the C ourt issue an af-
firm ative order directing respondent to bargain in
good faith w ith the union concerning*35-0 their
w ages,hours and other term s and conditions of ern-
ploym ent,including the decision to relocate,and the
effects of such decision upon unit em ployees, to
w ithdraw from bargaining its current proposals that
w ould alter the scope of the parties'established col-
lective-bargaining unit in Syracuse,N ew Y ork,and
to post copies of the D istrict C ourt's opinion and or-
der at the facilities w here notices to em ployees are
custom arily posted.
A PPL IC A B L E L A W
S ection 10(j) of N ational L abor R elations A ct, 29
U .S .C . 160(j), provides that upon issuance of a
com plaint charging that a person has engaged in or is
engaging in an unfair labor practice, the B oard has
the pow er to petition a D istrict C ourt for appropriate
tem porary relief or restraining order.
1-11[21[311-41 In considering such a petition,the C ourt
is required to determ ine w hether there is reasonable
cause to believe thatan unfair labor practice has been
com m itted and,if so,w hether the requested relief is
just and proper. K aynard v.M ego C orp., 633 F.2d
1026, 1033 (2d C ir.1980). W ith respect to w hether
there is reasonable cause to believe that an unfair
labor practice has been com m itted,petitioner "is not
required to show that an unfair labor practice oc-
curred or that the precedents governing the case are
in perfect harm ony,but only that there is 'reasonable
'cause to believe that a B oard decision finding an un-
fair labor practice w ill be enforced by a C ourt of A p-
peals.'" Id. at 1033; quoting M cLeod v.B usiness
M achine and O ffice A ppliance M echanics C onfer-
ence B oard, 300 F.2d 237,242,n.17 (2d C ir.1962).
T he reasonable cause requirem ent is satisfied w here
the B oard has com e forw ard w ith evidence "suffi-
cientto spellouta likelihood of violation." D anielson
v. Joint B oard of C oat, Suit and A llied G arm ent
W orkers'U nion, 494 F.2d 1230,1243 (2a C ir.1974).
In review ing the facts,the courtneed notresolve con-
flicting evidence if facts exist w hich could support
the B oard's theory.T he B oard's version of the facts
"should be given the benefit of the doubt." Seeler v.
The Trading P ort, 517 F .2d 33, 37 (2d C ir.1975).
R egarding the law ,unless the court is convinced that
the legal position of the B oard is w rong,a finding of
reasonable cause m ust ensue.,K aynard at1033.
151161 Injunctive relief under section 10(j) is "justand
proper" w here serious and pervasive unfair labor
practices threaten to render the board's process totally
ineffective by precluding a m eaningful final rem edy
or w here interim relief is the only effective m eans to
preserve or restore the status quo as itexisted before
the onsetof the violations. K aynard at1034; Seeler at
38. In review ing an application for injunctive relief
the court m ust consider general equitable criteria
such as w hether irreparable injury m ay result in the
absence of an injunction, K aynard at 1033, and
w hether a balancing of the hardships supports an in-
junction. A hearn v. H ouse of the G ood Sam aritan,
884 F.Supp.654,661 (N .D .N .Y .1995).
R E A SO N A B L E C A U SE
NLRB-FOIA-00008584
Page 7
10,387
A t all m aterial tim es respondent has been engaged in
producing air conditioning products in S yracuse,
N ew Y ork. --A t all m aterial tim es, the union has
been the designated exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of certain em ployees at respondent's
four S yracuse, N ew Y ork plants (know n as T R -1,
T R -2,T R -3 and T R -20) for the purposes of collective
bargaining w ith respect to rates of pay,w ages,hours
of em ploym ent, and other term s and conditions of
em ploym ent.FI
'2 *351 T he union has been recognized
by respondent as the unit representative.T he current
collective-bargaining agreem ent is in effect from
N ovem ber 3, 1997 until N ovem ber 5, 2000. O ne of
the covered plants, know n as T R -1, produces large
rotary chillers for com m ercial air conditioning appli-
cations. It is undisputed that respondent has begun
relocation of the T R -1 facility to H untersville,N orth
C arolina.
FN 1. R espondent in conducting its business
operations purchases and receives at its
Syracuse,N ew Y ork facility,goods and m a-
terials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points located outside the State of N ew
Y ork, and has been engaged in com m erce
w ithin the m eaning of section 2(2),(6) and
(7) of the A ct.
FN 2. T he union is an unincorporated asso-
ciation in w hich em ployees participate and
w hich exists for the purpose of dealing w ith
em ployers concerning grievances,labor dis-
putes, w ages, rates of pay, hours of em -
ploym ent or other conditions of em ploym ent
and is a labor organization w ithin the m ean-
ing of section 2(5) of the A ct.
T he follow ing em ployees of respondent
constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining w ithin the
m eaning of section 9(b) of the A ct: A ll
production and m aintenance em ployees at
the respondent's existing Syracuse, N ew
Y ork plants, including truck drivers,
group leaders and leadpersons, but ex-
cluding tim ekeepers,tim e study em ploy-
ees,nurses,draftspersons,research w ork-
, ers, cafeteria em ployees, all other clerical
and salaried em ployees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the N ational L abor
R elations A ct of 1947,as am ended,and as
certified by the N ational L abor R elations
B oard in C ase 3-R C -2541.
IL L Petitioner's determ ination here thatrelocation is a
m andatory subject of collective bargaining is sup-
ported by case law , U nited F ood and C om m ercial
W orkers Intern.U nion.AFL-C IO v.1V.L.R.B.

1 F.3d
24 (D .C .C ir.1993), cert. dism issed, 511 U .S. 1138,
114 S.C t.2157,128 L .E d.2d 882 (1994),and by the
collective bargaining agreem ent betw een respondent
and the union. Im plicit in this determ ination is the
finding that the union did not w aive its right to bar-
gain the issue of relocation.T his finding is supported
by the "M anagem ent R esponsibility" clause,A rticle
V ,section 1,of the collective bargaining agreem ent,
w hich recognizes "the responsibility of m anagem ent
to conduct the business of the C om pany in the bal-
anced interest of em ployees,stockholders,custom ers
and the general public," and gives the C om pany the
responsibility, w ithout interference, restriction, or
recourse to grievance procedures,to determ ine "the
num ber of plants and their locations."
f81[9][101 W aiver of statutorily protected rights is
disfavored by national labor policy. O livetti (V ice
U S.A.v.N .L.R.B., 926 F.2d 181,187 (2d C ir.I991),
cert.denied,
502 U .S . 856, 112 S .C t. 168, 116
L .E d.2d 132 (1991).O nly a "clear and unm istakable"
w aiver w ill be recognized by the C ourts. Id. at
187.M G iven the board's expertise in labor m atters,
its decision on the question of w aiver is accorded
significant deference and w ill not be overturned if
supported by substantial evidence. N .L.R .B .v.N ew
York Telephone C o.,

930 F .2d 1009, 1011 (2d
C ir.1991).In addition to the agreem ent itself,courts
consider other factors, including the past practices
and bargaining history of the parties,in determ ining
w hether a w aiver has occurred. N .L.R .B .v.U nited
Technologies C orp.,
8 8 4 F .2 d 1 5 6 9 , 1 5 7 5 (2 d
C ir.1989).
FN 3.C arrier argues that the correct analysis
is not a w aiver analysis but rather contract
interpretation,i.e.,w hether the union exer-
cised its right to bargain about a particular
subject by negotiating for a provision in a
collective bargaining contract that fixes the
parties'rights and forecloses further m anda-
tory bargaining as to that subject.See N LRB
v . U .S . P o stal S e m ,
8 F .3 d 8 3 2
(D .C .C ir.1993).T his approach has not been
NLRB-FOIA-00008585
Page 8
66 F.Supp.2d 346,161 L .R .R .IV I.(B N A ) 2112,161 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2119,137 L ab.C as.P 10,381,137 L ab.C as.P
10,387
adopted by the Second C ircuit.See O livetti
O ffice U .S.A.v.N .L.R.B.,

926 F.2d 181 (2d
C ir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U .S. 856, 112
S.C t.168,116 L .E d.2d 132 (1991); N .L.R.B.
v. U nited T echnologies C orp.,

884 F .2d
1569 (2d C ir.1989); W agner, "N o" M eans
"N o" W hen a Party "R eally" Says So: T he
N L R B 's C ontinued A dherence to the C lear
and U nm istakable W aiver D octrine in U ni-
lateral C hange C ases,13 L abor L aw yer 325,
328,n.14.
H ere,the petitioner's position that the union did not
w aive relocation as a m andatory subject of collective
bargaining is suppoi-ted by the parties'agreem ent and
by the affidavit of R obert E .D em rnerle,union repre-
sentative, to the effect that the union has never in-
tended to w aive its right to bargain the issue of relo-
cation.T hus,facts *352 exist w hich support peti-
tioner's position on this issue.
f11 T Petitioner has determ ined that in its totality the
proposed addendum to the collective bargaining
agreem ent alters the scope of the bargaining unit by
effectively rem oving the T R -1 w orkers from the
m ulti-plant bargaining unit.

R eichhold C hem icals,
Inc.v.N .L.R.B.,
953 F.2d 594 (11th C ir.I992).Sup-
port for this determ ination is found in a plain reading
of the addendum , w hich elim inates "bum ping" and
"bidding" betw een T R -1 and the other facilities cov-
ered by the collective bargaining agreem ent,prohibits
w orkers'participation in a strike at T R -1 or any other
facility covered by the agreem ent, and, unlike the
collective bargaining agreem ent,w hich expires N o-
vem ber 5,2000,expires D ecem ber 5,2004.
11211131 Itis w ellestablished thatthe scope of a bar-
gaining unit is a perm issive subject of collective bar-
gaining, H ill-R om C o., Inc. v. N .L.R .B .,

957 F.2d
454,457 (7th C ir.1992),and that a party to a collec-
tive bargaining agreem ent cannot insist to the point
of im passe upon a perm issive proposal such that ac-
ceptance of the perm issive proposal becom es a condi-
tion precedent to agreem ent on a m andatory issue.
Spentonbush/R ed Star C om panies v.N .L.R .B .,

106
F.3d 484 (2d C ir.1997).
[141 T here is evidence in the record supporting peti-
tioner's factual determ ination that respondent insisted
to the point of im passe on the addendum such that
acceptance of the addendum becam e a condition
precedent to agreem ent on the m andatory issue of
relocation. T his evidence is found prim arily in the
affidavit of G eorge A .G ratton,B usiness M anager for
the union during the relevant tim es, and the corre-
spondence attached thereto. G ratton avers that the
docum ent know n as the addendum w as presented by
C harles V .G agliardi,a representative of respondent,
at a m eeting on A pril 1, 1998 betw een union and
com pany representatives. A ccording to G ratton,
G agliardi indicated that if the union did not agree to
the addendum respondent w ould relocate T R -1 and
stated that there "w ould not be m uch m ovem ent on
[respondent's] part per this docum ent." In letters to
the union on A pril 13, 1998 and A pril 23, 1998
G agliardi said respondent w ould invest in the T R -1
factory here in S yracuse "if the union is w illing to
agree to the addendum ." A ccording to G rafton,at a
m eeting ,betw een representatives of respondent and
the union on A pril 27,1998 G agliardi stated that the
relocation issue w ould be resolved in favor of T R -I
in Syracuse only if the union agreed to the addendum
and gave the ultim atum to the union that if it w ould
not change its position relative to the addendum ,that
m eeting (of A pril 27,1998) w ould be the final m eet-
ing concerning the relocation issue.O n M ay 1,1998
the union filed its unfair labor practice charge w ith
petitioner.
T his evidence is sufficient to establish that petitioner
has reasonable cause to conclude that respondent has
violated the A ct.
JU ST A N D PR O PE R
H aving determ ined that petitioner has reasonable
cause to conclude that respondent has violated sec-
tions 8(a)(1) and (5) of the A ct,the C ourt turns to the
question of w hether the relief requested is just and
proper.For the purpose of deciding w hat relief is just
and proper the C ourt m akes the follow ing findings of
fact.
T he union filed the unfair labor practice charge
herein on M ay 1, 1998. A copy w as m ailed to re-
spondent on the sam e day.O n June 23,1998,respon-
dent subm itted a 23-page position statem ent to peti-
tioner addressing the M ay 1,1998 charge and other
m atters.O n or about July 20,1998 a representative of
petitioner inform ed respondent that all allegations of
the charge w ere being dism issed except one,and that
petitioner w as sending the follow ing certified ques-
NLRB-FOIA-00008586
Page 9
10,387
tion to the N ational L abor R elations B oard D ivision
of A dvice in W ashington, D .C .: "W hether an em -
ployer*353 in C arrier's situation can precondition
bargaining over w hether to continue to operate an
existing plant upon acceptance of an agreem ent that
effectively carves em ployees out of the bargaining
unit and then bargain to im passe over a relocation
decision?" O n N ovem ber 16, 1998 respondent w as
inform ed that petitioner had been instructed to issue a
com plaint.
In O ctober 1998 respondent purchased a form er dis-
tribution center near H untersville,N orth C arolina for
$9.5 m illion. A s a result of m odifications already
perform ed,it is unlikely that the facility could be sold
for the am ount respondent paid for it.A s of January
19, 1999, 32 em ployees are actively em ployed by
respondent in H untersville, including 23 w ho have
quit other jobs to accept the positions offered to them
by respondent and several of w hom w ere C arrier em -
ployees w ho have relocated or are relocating to H un-
tersville from S yracuse. R espondent has spent or
com m itted m ore than $500,000 in em ployee reloca-
tion expenses.R espondent is in the process of screen-
ing,interview ing,hiring and training other applicants
for em ploym ent.
R espondent has entered several contracts w ith sup-
pliers for com ponents and parts to be supplied to the
H untersville facility.It has not yet rem oved from the
Syracuse plant any necessary equipm ent.R espondent
has already contracted for the purchase of a substan-
tial am ount of new equipm ent and services for use at
the H untersville plant, valued at approxim ately
$15,519,000. C arrier projects that it w ill lose ap-
proxim ately $1.125 m illion dollars per m onth until
the H untersville plantis in operation.
T he union anticipates that since the announced relo-
cation of T R -1 w ork to N orth C arolina, approxi-
m ately 70 bargaining unit em ployees w ill take early
retirem entfrom C arrier by M arch 1,1999.
A s stated, injunctive relief under section 10(j) is
proper w here serious and pervasive unfair labor prac-
tices threaten to render the board's process totally
ineffective by precluding a m eaningful final rem edy;
w here interim relief is the only effective m eans to
preserve or restore the status quo as it existed before
the violations; and w here the passage of tim e m ight
otherw ise allow the respondent to accom plish its
unlaw ful objective before being placed under legal
restraint. K avnard v. M ego C orp.,

633 F.2d 1026,
1034 (2d C ir.1980); Seeler v.The Trading P ort, 517
F.2d 33,38 (2d C ir.1975).
A s discussed above,there is am ple evidence support-
ing petitioner's position that respondent w rongfully
insisted to im passe on the addendum , a nonm anda-
tory proposal,such that the addendum becam e a con-
dition precedent to any agreem ent on relocation, a
m andatory issue.T hus,there is evidence that respon-
dent did not bargain in good faith regarding the relo-
cation decision. If petitioner ultim ately determ ines
that respondent im properly com m enced relocating
T R -1 w ork w ithout first bargaining to a bona fide
im passe,petitioner w ill then have the responsibility
to fashion a rem edy tailored to cure that w rong.O ne
such rem edy could w ell be restoral of the status quo
ante by restoral of the T R -1 operations in Syracuse.
See,generally, H irsch v.D orsey Trailers,Inc.. 147
F.3d 243 (3d C ir.1998); W ilson v. Liberty H om es,
Inc., 500 F.Supp.1120 (W .D .W is.1980), vacated in
part and rem anded, 673 F.2d 1333 (7th C ir.1981);
F rye for and on B ehalf of N .L.R .B .v.Sem inole In-
term odal T ransport, Inc.,

141 L . R . R . M 2265
(S.D .O hio 1992); see also O livetti O ffice U .S.A . v.
N .L.R.B., 926 F.2d 181,189 (2d C ir.1991), cert. de-
nied, 502 U .S.856,112 S.C t.168,116 L .E d.2d 132
(1991).
1151 F ailure to grant interim relief of the type re-
quested by petitioner w ould be likely to prevent peti-
tioner from effectively exercising its ultim ate rem e-
dial pow ers. A t this point, T R -1 in Syracuse is still
operational.A bsent injunctive relief,given respon-
dent's stated intention of com m encing production in
H untersville on M ay 11,1999 and achieving full pro-
duction *354 there by A ugust 15,1999,there w ill be
a rapid progression of equipm ent rem oval and em -
ployee transfers and layoffs, including early retire-
m ent of a significant num ber of bargaining unit em -
ployees.'-'4 O nce the relocation is com plete and the
Syracuse plant closed,restoral of the status quo as it
existed before the violations w ill be im possible.N ot
only w ill the cost of restoral of the facilities be pro-
hibitive,see,e.g., C alatrello v.A utom atic Sprinkler
C orp.of A m erica, 55 F.3d 208 (6th C ir.1995), but
m any unit em ployees w ill be scattered and the union
bargaining pow er w eakened w ith respect to T R -1.
T he C ourt recognizes that injunctive relief of the kind
requested here is a drastic m easure and is appropriate
NLRB-FOIA-00008587
Page 10
10,387
only w here necessary to prevent irreparable harm .
B ased on the facts before the C ourt, including the
m agnitude of the preparations for the H untersville
plant and the increasing obstacles to returning to the
pre-violation status quo, and the fact that respondent
took these steps w ith full know ledge of the union's
charge of unfair labor practices and the probability of
an N .L .R .B . proceeding, the C ourt concludes that
injunctive relief is necessary to preserve the operabil-
ity of T R -1 in Syracuse,to protect petitioner's rem e-
dialpow ers,and to preventirreparable harm .
FN 4.A ccording to an affidavitof C harles V .
G agliardi, respondent's D irector of E m -
ployee and Industrial R elations,there are no
projected em ployee layoffs until July,1999.
H e states that as a result of early retirem ent
incentives and norm al attrition,betw een 40
and 70 bargaining unit em ployees on the
payroll as of January 1, 1999 w ill be laid
off.H e also avers that of the unit em ployees
on the payrollas of M ay 13,1998 w hen C ar-
rier announced its decision to relocate T R -1,
no one w illbe laid off.
B ruce A .E vans,business m anager of the
union,states in an affidavit that since re-
spondentannounced its relocation of T R -1
w ork to N orth C arolina,approxim ately 70
bargaining unit em ployees in T R -1 w ill
take early retirem ent through M arch 1,
1999.
A ccording to petitioner,before the events
in issue,about 450 unit em ployees w orked
in T R -1.H erbert A .C ooley,respondent's
M anager of Syracuse Industrial R elations
states that approxim ately 100 T R -1 posi-
tions w ere elim inated as of January 4,
1999 as a result of the decisions to sub-
contract certain w ork and discontinue cer-
tain products,w hich are not in issue here.
j1611171 R espondent argues that it has been preju-
diced by petitioner's delay.D elay alone is not a de-
term inative factor in w hether 10(j) relief is just and
proper.D elay m ay be significant,how ever,w here it
leads to a change in circum stances w hich affects the
appropriateness of the relief requested. See generally
N .L.R .B .v.Q uinn R estaurant C orp.,

14 F.3d 811,
816 (2d C ir.1994).H ere,the closure of T R -1 has not
yet occurred and interim relief should preserve the
status quo. M oreover,it w ould not be appropriate to
punish the em ployees for any delay by petitioner. Id
M ost im portantly, it is undisputed that respondent
knew of the union's charges and B oard's investiga-
tion, yet proceeded w ith the relocation. H ere the
claim ed prejudice is of respondent's ow n m aking,
H irsch v. D orsey Trailers, Inc., 147 F.3d 243,248
(3d C ir.1998), and w ill have resulted from a calcu-
lated risk undertaken by respondent. T he C ourt ob-
serves also that respondent's evidence of the costs it
has incurred in preparation for the H untersville op-
eration and its losses associated w ith the T R -1 facil-
ity in Syracuse does not include evidence of respon-
dent's overall financial situation so as to enable the
C ourt to consider the burden of these costs in the
context of respondent's entire operation.U nder all of
the circum stances,including the absence of any basis
w hereby the public interest w ould be adversely af-
fected if an injunction is ordered, see

A hearn v.
H ouse of the G ood Sam aritan, 884 F.Supp.654,663
(N .D .N .Y .1995),the C ourt finds that an injunction is
justand proper.
T he C ourt declines to direct respondent to w ithdraw
from bargaining all its current proposals that w ould
alter the scope of the parties'established collective-
bargaining cam pus unit in Syracuse,N ew Y ork; it is
not im proper to propose perm issive subjects, even
repeatedly; it is only im proper *355 to insist upon
them to im passe such that acceptance of the perm is-
sive proposal becom es a condition precedent to an
agreem ent on m andatory subjects. Spentonhuslz/Red
Star C om panies v.N .L.R .B .,

106 F.3d 484,493 (2d
C ir.1997).
H aving considered the parties'subm issions and the
applicable law ,itis hereby
O R D E R E D that pending the final disposition of the
m atters before the N ational L abor R elations B oard,
the Petition for an Injunction under Section 10(j) of
the N ational L abor R elations A ct is G R A N T E D to
the extent set forth herein and otherw ise denied; it is
further
O R D E R E D that pending final B oard adjudication,
R espondent,its officers,representatives,agents,ser-
vants,em ployees,attorneys,and all persons acting in
concert or participation w ith them , are hereby en-
joined and restrained from :
NLRB-FOIA-00008588
Page 11
66 F.Supp.2d '346,161 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2112,161 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2119,137 L ab.C as.P 10,381,137 L ab.C as.P
10,387
com pliance w ith this posting requirem ent; and
(A ) Failing or refusing to bargain in good faith w ith
the union regarding its decision to relocate unit w ork
from the T R -1 facility in S yracuse, N ew Y ork to
H untersville, N orth C arolina, by, including but not
lim ited to,restricting bargaining to,and insisting to
im passe upon,the adoption of R espondent's proposal
to alter the scope of the existing collective-bargaining
unit by separating T R -1 em ployees from the estab-
lished m ulti-plant Syracuse,N ew Y ork cam pus U nit;
(B ) T aking any action, including construction or
preparation of, or procurem ent or installation of
equipm ent for, its facility in H untersville, N orth
C arolina,or rem oving or relocating any fixtures,m a-
chinery, equipm ent, inventory, raw m aterials, or
w ork/production orders,or laying off or term inating
any unit em ployees at its T R -1 facility on its Syra-
cuse,N ew Y ork cam pus to H untersville,N orth C aro-
lina,w ithout first bargaining to a good-faith im passe
or agreem ent w ith the union over the proposed relo-
cation decision and its effects upon unit em ployees;
and
(C ) In any like or related m anner interfering w ith,
restraining or coercing its em ployees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed them under Section 7 of the
A ct;and itis further
O R D ER E D thatR espondent:
(A ) U pon request,bargain in good faith w ith the un-
ion as the exclusive collective-bargaining representa-
tive of the unit em ployees at its Syracuse,N ew Y ork
cam pus concerning their w ages, hours and other
term s and conditions of em ploym ent, including the
decision to relocate unit w ork from its T R -1 Syra-
cuse,N ew Y ork cam pus facility to a facility in H un-
tersville,N orth C arolina,and the effects of such deci-
sion upon unitem ployees;and
(B ) Post copies of the M em orandum -D ecision and
O rder herein at the facilities in R espondent's Syra-
cuse,N ew Y ork facility w here notices to em ployees
are custom arily posted; said postings shall be m ain-'
tam ed during the pendency of the B oard's adm inistra-
tive proceedings free from all obstructions and de-
facem ents; all unit em ployees shall have free and
unrestricted access to said notices,and agents of the
B oard shall be granted reasonable access to the R e-
spondent's Syracuse,N ew Y ork cam pus to m onitor
(C ) W ithin tw enty (20) days of the issuance of the
M em orandum -D ecision and O rder herein,file w ith
the C ourt,w ith a copy subm itted to the R egional D i-
rector of R egion 3 of the B oard, a sw orn affidavit
from a responsible official of respondent, setting
forth w ith specificity the m anner in w hich the R e-
spondent has com plied w ith the term s of this decree,
including how it has posted the docum ents required
by the M em orandum -D ecision and O rder herein.

,
IT IS SO O R D E R E D .
M O T IO N FO R R E C O N SID E R A T IO N ,M O D I-
FIC A T IO N A N D A L IM IT E D ST A Y
R espondent m oves for reconsideration and m odifica-
tion of this C ourt's order of February 5,1999 and for
a lim ited stay *356 pending appeal of the 10(j) in-
junction (29 U .S.C .160U 1 ).
B ased on a "C harge A gainst E m ployer" filed by
Sheet M etal W orkers International A ssociation,L o-
cal 527 ("union") on M ay 1,1998,petitioner filed a
com plaint and notice of hearing on D ecem ber 7,
1998,alleging that since M arch 1,1998,respondent
has insisted,as a condition of agreeing notto relocate
certain unit w ork perform ed at its T R -1 facility in
Syracuse,N ew Y ork,that the union agree to the pro-
visions of an addendum to the parties'collective-
bargaining agreem ent; that the relocation of unit
w ork is a m andatory subject for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining; that the addendum , w hich w ould
effectively alter the scope of the existing bargaining
unit,is not a m andatory subject for purposes of col-
lective bargaining; and that on M ay 11, 1998, re-
spondent bargained to im passe.T he com plaint avers
that on the sam e date,respondent decided to relocate
the w ork perform ed by certain unit em ployees in the
T R -1 facility to a new facility located in H untersville,
N orth C arolina,notw ithstanding that it had failed to
reach a bona fide im passe in bargaining about the
relocation decision.T he com plaint further states that
beginning on or about O ctober 11,1998,respondent
began to im plem ent its decision to relocate the w ork
to H untersville.T he com plaint concludes that by the
alleged conduct,respondent has failed and refused to
bargain collectively w ith the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of its em ployees and seeks
an order directing respondent to "cease and desist
C 2010-T hom son R euters.N o C laim to O rig.U S G ov.W orks.
NLRB-FOIA-00008589
Page 12
10,387
from relocating U nit w ork from its T R -1 facility lo-
cated in Syracuse,N ew Y ork,and to restore all U nit
w ork w hich it has already rem oved,or w ill rem ove in
the future,back to its T R -1 facility located in Syra-
cuse,N ew Y ork as itexisted on M ay 11,1998."
A . M odification of subparagraph (B ) of the second
ordering paragraph.
T he petition essentially sets forth the sam e allega-
tions as are contained in the com plaint, states that
petitioner has reasonable cause to believe that re-
spondent has been failing and refusing to bargain
collectively and in good faith w ith the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of its em ployees,
and seeks an order enjoining respondent from failing
or refusing to bargain in good faith w ith the union
regarding its decision to relocate.It further seeks an
order enjoining respondent from taking any action
including construction or preparation of the H unters-
ville facility or rem oving or relocating fixtures,
e q u ip m e n t, in v e n to ry , ra w m a te ria ls, o r
any unit em ployees in Syracuse in furtherance of its
decision to relocate w ork to H untersville w ithout first
bargaining to a good-faith im passe or agreem ent w ith
the union over the proposed relocation decision and
its effects upon unit em ployees.T he petition further
requests that the C ourt issue an affirm ative order di-
recting respondent to bargain in good faith w ith the
union concerning w ages,hours and other term s and
conditions of em ploym ent,including the decision to
relocate, and the effects of such decision upon unit
em ployees.
(B ) T aking any action, including construction or
preparation of, or procurem ent or installation of
equipm ent for, its facility in H untersville, N orth
C arolina,or rem oving or relocating any fixtures,m a-
chinery, equipm ent, inventory, raw m aterials, or
any unit em ployees at its T R -1 facility on its Syra-
cuse,N ew Y ork cam pus in furtherance of its decision
to relocate w ork from its Syracuse,N ew Y ork cam -
pus to H untersville, N orth C arolina, w ithout first
bargaining to a good-faith im passe or agreem ent w ith
the union over the proposed relocation decision and
its effects upon unitem ployees ***.
B y M em orandum -D ecision and O rder dated.February
5,1999,this C ourt ordered that pending finaldisposi-
tion of the m atters before petitioner,respondent w as
enjoined from failing or refusing to bargain in good
faith w ith the union regarding its decision to relocate
unit w ork to H untersville,N orth C arolina and from
taking any action including construction or prepara-
tion of the H untersville facility or rem oving or relo-
cating fixtures,equipm ent,inventory,raw m aterials
or w ork/production orders or laying off or term inat-
ing unit em ployees in Syracuse w ithout first bargain-
ing to a good-faith im passe or agreem ent w ith the
union over the proposed relocation decision and its
effects on unit em ployees.T he C ourt further ordered
respondent, upon request, to bargain in good faith
w ith the union concerning w ages, hours and other
term s and conditions of em ploym ent, including the
decision to relocate unit w ork from its *357 Syracuse
facility to the H untersville facility.
A ll parties agree to the proposed m odification of
subparagraph (B ) of the second ordering paragraph to
add the phrase "in furtherance of its decision to relo-
cate w ork from its Syracuse,N ew Y ork cam pus" so
as to clarify the scope of the order.T he C ourt grants
this relief and m odifies subparagraph (B ) of the sec-
ond ordering paragraph to read as follow s:
B . R econsideration and m odification of that part of
the O rder that im poses on respondent an obligation
to bargain w ith the union on request.
j181.R espondent requests the C ourt to reconsider and
m odify the final ordering paragraph on page 16 of the
C ourt's February 5,1999 order (subparagraph [A ] of
the third ordering paragraph),w hich directs respon-
dent,upon request,to bargain in good faith w ith the
union concerning the decision to relocate w ork from
its T R -1 facility in Syracuse,N ew Y ork to a facility
in H untersville, N orth C arolina, and the effects of
such decision on unit em ployees.It is undisputed that
respondent's proposed relocation is presently the only
basis for a collective bargaining order. R espondent
argues that,inasm uch as respondent is enjoined from
relocating,it is im proper to com pel it to bargain over
the relocation issue.
T here is nothing in the record to suggest that respon-
dent does not intend to pursue its plans to relocate
T R -1 as soon as possible. T his court has found that
petitioner has reasonable cause to conclude that relo-
, cation is an issue concerning w hich respondent is
required to bargain collectively.R espondent claim s it
NLRB-FOIA-00008590
Page 13
10,387
is losing m illions of dollars due to the delay in com -
m encing operation of its H untersville plant. U nit
w orkers and the union are prejudiced by the uncer-
tainty regarding future em ploym ent and the potential
w eakening of the union as a result of the dispersion
of w orkers.D irecting collective bargaining concern-
ing respondent's decision to relocate and the effects
of that decision on unit em ployees w hile the status
quo is m aintained by the 10(j) injunction w ill serve
the interests of respondent,the w orkers and the union
and w ill prom ote the public interest in the resolution
of labor disputes by collective bargaining. T here is
am ple case law authority for such an order. See,e.g.,
F rye for and on B ehalf of N .L.R .B .v.Sem inole In-
term odal Transport,Inc., 141 L .R .R .M .2265,2267
(S.D .O h.1992); Zipp v.B ohn H eat Transfer G roup.,
110 L .R .R .M .3013,3015 (C .D .11.1982); see, gener-
ally, Dunbar v. H ill P ark H ealth C are C enter, 23
F.Supp.2d 212 (N .D .N .Y .1998), affd. 166 F.3d 1200.
1998 W L 870195 (2d C ir.I998); B ernstein v.C arter
& Sons F reightw ays, Inc.,

9 8 3 F .S u p p . 9 9 4
(D .C .K an.1997); A hearn v. H ouse of the G ood Sa-
m aritan, 884 F.Supp.654.(N .D .N .Y .1995).
A ccordingly,the C ourt finds no basis to reconsider or
m odify its order insofar as it directs interim bargain-
ing on the issue of relocation.For the sam e reasons,
the C ourt declines to stay this portion of the order
pending the outcom e of the N .L .R .B .proceeding.
*358 C .Lim ited stay pending appeal of F ebruary 5,
1999 order.
R espondent seeks a lim ited stay pending appeal of
those portions of the C ourt's order,that preclude re-
spondent from com pleting the current construction
and equipm ent contracts at the H untersville facility
and from transferring to H untersville one crane that is
currently notin use.
R espondent asserts that it w ill suffer irreparable harm
as a result of the 10(j) injunction.T he C ourt has al-
ready considered respondent's claim s of financial
hardship in reaching its decision to grant the injunc-
tion. T he C ourt also considered all other relevant
factors,including the support in the record for peti-
tioner's finding that respondent engaged in an unfair
labor practice,the fact that in its com plaint petitioner
seeks the rem edy of restoration of the Syracuse plant,
the potential harm to the union and unit w orkers if
the injunction w ere denied,and the fact that respon-
dent undertook the relocation w ith know ledge of the
union's charges and the N .L .R .B .investigation.T he
C ourt previously observed that there w as an absence
of evidence of respondent's overallfinancialsituation
w hich w ould enable the C ourt to consider the burden
of the claim ed costs in the context of respondent's
entire operation. T he C ourt further observes on the
present application that respondent's conclusory
claim s of potential contractual penalties and breach
of contract claim s against respondent arising from
outstanding uncom pleted contracts for w ork in H un-
tersville are unsubstantiated. M oreover, increased
investm ent in the H untersville plant w ill tend to m ili-
tate against restoration as a final rem edy by increas-
ing the financial burden of restoration. G iven the
purpose of the 10(j) injunction herein, w hich is to
m aintain the status quo, preserve the availability of
the restoration rem edy sought by petitioner,and pre-
vent respondent from accom plishing its objective of
relocating the plant before being placed under legal
restraint, the C ourt concludes, as it did previously,
that, w eighed w ith all other relevant factors, the
claim ed financial harm does not w arrant a stay of any
part of the injunction, including that part of the in-
junction w hich effectively restrains relocation of the
crane from T R -1 to H untersville.
In considering the claim ed harm to respondent, the
C ourt also takes into consideration the fact that dur-
ing a telephone conference occurring on February 10,
1999, the C ourt and parties addressed a num ber of
issues involving the safety,security and preservation
of the H untersville plant during the pendency of the
N .L .R .B .proceeding.A s a result of that conference
respondent w as authorized to perform roof repairs,
repair an opening in a w all,com plete a safety check
on the electrical system ,secure plum bing fixtures and
cover openings in the w alls for w indow s and doors.
T he C ourt also stated that it w ould authorize respon-
dent to install fire and burglar alarm s if such alarm s
w ere required by local authorities.'T he C ourt further
offered to assist the parties if they w ere unable to
com e to an agreem ent regarding respondent's request
that it be perm itted to take reasonable steps to protect
a partially com pleted parking lot. T hus, practical
problem s arising from the injunction have been re-
solved.
C arrier also argues that it has a substantial likelihood
of success on appeal.T he issues raised by C arrier in
support of this argum ent w ere considered by the
NLRB-FOIA-00008591
Page 14
10,387
C ourt in reaching its February 5,1999 decision.N o
purpose w ould be served by revisiting them here.
R espondent has failed to carry its burden of proving
its entitlem entto a lim ited stay of the injunction.
A ccordingly,itis hereby
O R D E R E D that respondent's m otion is denied in its
entirety.
IT IS SO O R D E R ED .
N .D .N .Y .,1999.
D unbar ex rel.N .L .R .B .v.C arrier C orp.
66 F.Supp.2d 346,161 L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2112,161
L .R .R .M .(B N A ) 2119,137 L ab.C as.P 10,381,137
L ab.C as.P 10,387
NLRB-FOIA-00008592
N O TIC E .-T his opinion is subject to form al revision before pubhcation in the
bound volum es of N L R B decisions. R eaders are requested to notity the E x-
ecutive Secretary, N ational L abor R elations B oard W ashington, D .C .
20570, of any typographical or other form al errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volum es.
T h e P ittsb u rg & M id w ay C oal M in in g C om p an y and
U n ited M in e W ork ers of A m erica. C ases 27

C A -19566-1 and 27 C A -19567-1
S eptem ber 29, 2010
D E C IS IO N A N D O R D E R
B Y CH A IR M A N LIEB M A N A N D M EM B ER S B ECK ER
A N D PEA R CE
U pon a charge and an am ended charge filed A pril 6
and 7, 2005, by U nited M ine W orkers of A m erica, the
G eneral C ounsel of the N ational L abor R elations B oard
issued an order consolidating cases, a consolidated com -
plaint, and a notice of hearing on O ctober 28, 2005, al-
leging that T he P ittsburg & M idw ay C oal M ining C om -
pany had violated S ection 8(a)(3), (5), and (1) of the A ct.
S pecifically, the consolidated com plaint alleges that the
R espondent violated S ection 8(a)(3) and (1) of the A ct
by m odifying the term s of the em ployees'bonus plan in
response to the U nion's exercise of its contractual right
to call "M em orial P eriod" w ork stoppages at the N orth
R iver M ine and to discourage em ployees from engaging
in future such w ork stoppages. T he com plaint further
alleges that because the m odification of the bonus plan
adversely affected the U nion's contractual right to call
m em o rial d ay s at th e R esp o n d en t's N o rth R iv er,
M cK inley, K em m erer, and Y ork M ines, the m odification
also violated S ection 8(a)(5) and (1).
O n A ugust 18, 2006, the R espondent, the U nion, and
the G eneral C ounsel filed w ith the B oard a joint stipula-
tion of facts and a m otion to transfer this proceeding to
the B oard. T he parties w aived a hearing before an ad-
m inistrative law judge and agreed to subm it the case di-
rectly to the B oard for findings of fact, conclusions of
law , and a D ecision and O rder, based on a record consist-
ing of the charge, the order consolidating cases, the con-
solidated com plaint, the notice of hearing, the answ ers to
th e co m p lain t, th e o rd ers p o stp o n in g th e h earin g , th e
stipulated facts and exhibits, and the parties'statem ent of
issues presented.
O n January 16, 2007, the B oard approved the stipula-
tio n o f facts an d g ran ted th e m o tio n . T h ereafter, th e
G eneral C ounsel, the R espondent, and the U nion filed
briefs, and the G eneral C ounsel and the U nion filed reply
briefs.I
T he N ational L abor R elations B oard has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-m em ber panel.
The Board rejected the Respondent's answ ering briefas untim ely.
O n the entire record and briefs, the B oard m akes the
follow ing
FIN D IN G S O F FA CT
I.JU R ISD ICTIO N
T he R espondent is a M issouri corporation w ith a prin-
cipal office and place of business in E nglew ood, C olo-
rado. A t all relevant tim es, the R espondent w as engaged
in the business of operating coal m ines at the follow ing
lo catio n s: th e N o rth R iv er M in e in A lab am a, th e
M cK in ley M in e an d th e Y o rk C an y o n M in e in N ew
M exico, and the K em m erer M ine in W yom ing. In the
course and conduct of its coal m ining business, the R e-
spondent annually purchases and receives at its K em -
m erer M ine goods, m aterials, and services valued in ex-
cess of $50,000 directly from points and places outside
th e S tate o f W y o m in g . T h e R esp o n d en t is a w h o lly -
o w n ed in d irect su b sid iary o f C h ev ro n C o rp o ratio n , a
m u ltin atio n al p u b licly -trad ed co m p an y in th e en erg y
industry.
T he parties stipulated, and w e find, that at all m aterial
tim es, the R espondent has been an em ployer engaged in
com m erce w ithin the m eaning of S ection 2(2), (6), and
(7) of the A ct and that the U nion is a labor organization
w ithin the m eaning of S ection 2(5) of the A ct.
II.A LLEG ED U N FA IR LA B O R PRA CTICES
A . Stipulated F acts
A t all m aterial tim es, the U nion represented the R e-
spondent's em ployees at the four m ines, w hich are situ-
ated in tw o of the U nion's districts: D istrict 20 (N orth
R iver M ine) and D istrict 22 (K em m erer M ine, M cK inley
M ine, and the now -closed Y ork C anyon M ine). S ince
1978, the R espondent and the U nion have operated under
successive collective-bargaining agreem ents containing
the follow ing "M em orial P eriods" clause:
T he International U nion, U nited M ine W orkers of
A m erica, m ay designate m em orial periods not exceed-
ing a total of ten (10) days during the term of this
agreem ent at any m ine or operation provided it shall
give reasonable notice to the E m ployer. (E m phasis
added.)
A m em orial period or day is a w ork stoppage that re-
su lts in th e cessatio n o f o p eratio n s at th e m in e(s) at
w hich it is called. A rbitrators'decisions included in the
p arties'stip u latio n in d icate th at th e U n io n h as called
m em orial days to com m em orate m ine disasters, to allow
em ployees to take tim e off for union business, to support
the U nion's position in local disputes, and even to perm it
em ployees to take a day off at the start of the hunting
season, am ong other reasons.
355 N L R B N o. 197
NLRB-FOIA-00008593
D E CISIO N S O F T H E N A T IO N A L L A B O R R E L A T IO N S B O A R D
S ince 1995, the R espondent and the U nion have also
been parties to a letter of agreem ent (L O A ), separate
from the collective-bargaining agreem ent, under w hich
union-represented em ployees participate in C hevron
S u ccess S h arin g (C S S o r b o n u s p lan ). T h e letter o f
agreem ent states in pertinent part:
[T he R espondent] m ay,w ithout prior notice,m odify,
am end or term inate C SS , but it is agreed that should
any changes be m ade,said changes shall be com m uni-
cated to the U nion as soon as practicable.
...it is understood and agreed that any dispute as to the
interpretation or application of C S S or this letter of
agreem ent is not subject to the grievance and arbitra-
tion provisions of the collective bargaining agreem ents
of the Parties,and it is understood that the U nion m ay
term inate this agreem ent if the U nion disagrees w ith
any [R espondent] decision w ith regard to CSS.
D uring negotiations over the L O A , in response to the
U nion's objection, the R espondent rem oved proposed
language that w ould have given the L O A precedence
over the collective-bargaining agreem ent. T he stipulated
record indicates that the R espondent has m odified the
plan in certain years to change the percentage of the bo-
nus payout. A dditionally, in 2001, it m odified the bonus
plan to require forfeiture of the bonus by any em ployees
w ho engage in an unauthorized w ork stoppage. T he U n-
ion did not object to any of those m odifications.
In 2004, the U nion called m em orial days at the R e-
spondent's N orth R iver M ine on February 26, 27, and 28,
and July 19, 21, and 30, in order to place econom ic pres-
sure on the R espondent w ith respect to ongoing griev-
ances that w ere being taken to arbitration. T he stipulated
record does not reveal the nature of the grievances.
O n F ebruary 3, 2005, the R espondent notified the U n-
ion that it had m odified the bonus plan to include a pro-
vision requiring em ployees to forfeit the bonus at any
m ine at w hich the U nion called a m em orial day, if the
m em orial day w as called on less than a districtw ide ba-
sis. T he m odification states:
T here w ill be no financial m etric pay out at any m ine
w here the U M W A calls a m em orial period or day for
such m ine w ithout having called such a m em orial pe-
riod or day for all of the U M W A represented m ines or
facilities w ithin the U M W A D istrict in w hich such
m ine is located.
T he R espondent acknow ledges that the provision w as
added in response to the U nion's calling the 6 m em orial
days at the N orth R iver m ine during the preceding year.
B .The P arties'C ontentions
T he G eneral C ounsel and the U nion contend that the
R espondent unlaw fully m odified the bonus plan in re-
taliation for the U nion and the em ployees'exercise of
their contractual right to call m em orial days at individual
m ines. T he G eneral C ounsel and the U nion also contend
that the unilateral m odification w as unlaw ful insofar as it
w as intended to, and w ould, deter em ployees from the
exercise of their contractually guaranteed right to partici-
pate in m em orial days. T hey further argue that the bonus
plan m odification adversely affected the exercise of the
em ployees'contractual rights, thereby undercutting the
U nion's status as bargaining representative.
T he R espondent contends that its change to the bonus
plan w as law ful because it acted w ithout antiunion ani-
m us and because the U nion's w ork stoppages that trig-
gered the R espondent's change w ere not protected by the
A ct.2 It further contends that the m em orial days that the
U nion called at the N orth R iver M ine constituted eco-
nom ic strikes, and that its m odification of the bonus plan
w as an econom ic w eapon law fully em ployed in response.
F inally, the R espondent asserts that the 1995 L O A ex-
pressly gave it the right to am end or term inate the plan
and, therefore, that its 2005 am endm ent of the plan did
not violate the A ct.
C .D iscussion
T he parties stipulated that the alleged 8(a)(3) violation
should be analyzed using the B oard's W rightLine test.3
H aving accepted the stipulation, w e w ill use the W right
Line fram ew ork for our analysis.
T o m eet his initial burden under W rightLine, the G en-
eral C ounsel m ust show , by a preponderance of the evi-
dence, that the em ployees'protected conduct w as a m o-
tivating factor in the em ployer's decision.

Shearer
F oods,Inc., 340 N L R B 1093,1094 (2003); M ann E lec-
tric, 321 N L R B 278, 280 (1996). O nce the G eneral
C ounsel carries his initial burden, the burden of persua-
sion "shift[s] to the em ployer to dem onstrate that the
sam e action w ould have taken place even in the absence
of the protected conduct." W rightLine, 251 N L R B at
1089.
H ere, it is undisputed that the em ployees'm em orial
day w ork stoppages w ere a m otivating factor in the R e-
spondent's decision to m odify its bonus plan. T herefore,
the only question to be decided is w hether the em ploy-
s argu-
2 T he R espondent also suggests that the G eneral C ounsel'

m ents that m em orial days are protected activity are beyond the scope of
par. 5(b) of the com plaint. H ow ever, pars. 5(a), (b), and (c) clearly
encom pass those argum ents.
3 W right Line, 251 N L R B 1083 (1980),enfd.662 F.2d 899 (1st Cir.
1981),cert.denied 455 U .S.989 (1982),approved in NLR B v.Trans-
portation M anagem ent C orp.,462 U .S.393 (1983).
NLRB-FOIA-00008594
PIT T SB U R G & M ID W A Y CO A L M IN IN G CO .
ees'participation in the m em orial days constituted pro-
tected activity under the A ct. If the G eneral C ounsel
establishes that the w ork stoppages constituted protected
conduct, the G eneral C ounsel has proved a violation of
the A ct, absent som e other affirm ative defense. A s dis-
cussed below , w e find that the G eneral C ounsel has es-
tablished that the w ork stoppages constituted protected
conduct and that the R espondent did not m eet its burden
of proving its affirm ative defenses.
D id the M em orial Periods C onstitute Protected
A ctivity under the A ct
W e begin our analysis w ith the principle that an em -
ployee's exercise of rights provided for in a collective-
bargaining agreem ent constitutes protected activity under
the A ct. NLR B v.C ity D isposalSystem s, 465 U .S . 822,
831-832 (1984); R ogers C orp., 344 N L R B 504, 513
(2005);
W heeling-P ittsburgh Steel,
241 N L R B 1214,
1221 (1979), enfd. in rel. part 618 F .2d 1009 (3d C ir.
1980). H ere, the parties'contract explicitly granted the
U nion the right to call m em orial days and placed only
tw o restrictions on that right: the num ber of m em orial
days called could not exceed 10 during the contract pe-
riod, and the U nion w as required to provide the R espon-
dent w ith advance notice. T he U nion violated neither of
those restrictions. It w ould appear, therefore, that by
exercising their right to participate in m em orial days in a
m anner consistent w ith the contract, the em ployees w ere
engaging in conduct protected by the A ct.
T he R espondent nevertheless argues that the B oard
should find, that the w ork stoppages did not constitute
protected conduct and, therefore, that its m odification of
the bonus plan in response to the stoppages did not vio-
late the A ct. G iven the G eneral C ounsel's show ing, the
burden of proof shifted to the R espondent to dem onstrate
that the w ork stoppages w ere unprotected. S ee

Silver
State D isposalService, 326 N L R B 84,85-86 (1998).
F irst, the R espondent asserts that the U nion 's invoca-
tion of the m em orial day provision is distinct from the
exercise of S ection 7 rights by em ployees.

F urther as-
serting that Section 7 protects em ployees and not unions,
the R espondent contends that the U nion's action in call-
ing m em orial days w as not protected by the A ct. T his
argum ent is w ithout m erit. U nder the contract, the U n-
ion, acting as the em ployees'representative, designates
the m em orial days and then the em ployees, exercising
their contractual rights, take the m em orial days. A s the
parties stipulated, "the U nion m ay designate 'M em orial
P eriods'... to be taken by em ployees." H ere, m oreover,
it w as the em ployees at the N orth R iver M ine w ho peti-
tioned the U nion's president, C ecil R oberts, to call the
m em orial days at issue. T he U nion's contractual right to
designate m em orial days has no m eaning apart from the
em ployees'ability to participate in those m em orial days
and their participation is the exercise of a S ection 7
right.4
N ext, the R espondent argues that the m em orial days
did not constitute protected conduct because they w ere
called in v io latio n o f th e p arties'im p lied n o -strik e
agreem ent. C iting G atew ay C oal C o.v.M ine W orkers,
414 U .S . 368 (1974), the R espondent asserts that, be-
cause the parties'collective-bargaining agreem ent con-
tained an arbitration provision, the U nion im plicitly
agreed not to strike over arbitrable m atters. A s a result,
the R espondent further asserts, the m em orial days called
in support of grievances at the N orth R iver M ine w ere
effectiv ely tak en in d ero g atio n o f th e co llectiv e-
bargaining agreem ent, and therefore, w ere not protected.
For the follow ing reasons,w e disagree.
In G atew ay C oal,the C ourt considered w hether a dis-
trict court had the authority to enjoin a w ork stoppage
that had been called over a safety concern at a m ine.
A fter finding that the safety dispute w as arbitrable, the
C ourt concluded that the union w as under an im plied
contractual duty not to strike based on the broad arbitra-
tion clause contained in the parties'collective-bargaining
agreem ent. Q uoting B oys M arkets,Inc.v.R etail C lerks
U nion, 398 U .S . 235, 248 (1970), the C ourt reasoned,
"[A ] no-strike obligation, express or im plied, is the quid
pro quo for an undertaking by the em ployer to subm it
grievance disputes to the process of arbitration."

G ate-
w ay, 414 U .S.at 382.
T he G atew ay C ourt nevertheless recognized that, al-
though "an arbitration agreem ent is usually linked w ith a
concurrent no-strike obligation, ... the tw o issues rem ain
analytically distinct." Id. A s the C ourt concluded:
It w ould be unusual,but certainly perm issible,for the
parties to agree to a broad m andatory arbitration provi-
sion yet expressly negate any im plied no-strike obliga-
tion. S uch a contract w ould reinstate the situation
com m only existing before our decision in Boys M ar-
kets. A bsent an explicit expression of such an inten-
tion,how ever,the agreem ent to arbitrate and the duty
not to strike should be construed as having coterm inous
application.
Id. Plainly, how ever, the parties to a contract are free to,
"expressly negate" any im plied no-strike obligation in
w hole or in part.
4 T he R espondent's reliance on language from

Lechm ere,Inc.v.
NLRB, 502 U .S.527,532 (1992),is m isplaced. Lechm ere involved the
question of w hether nonem ployee union organizers had a right of access
to em ployer's private property. H ere, by contrast, the em ployees'
exercise of their ow n contract right to engage,subject to restrictions,
in w ork stoppages is the issue.
NLRB-FOIA-00008595
D ECISIO N S O F TH E N A T IO N A L
T he question presented here is w hether, based on the
parties'agreem ent to arbitrate their disputes, the m em o-
rial days called at the N orth R iver M ine violated an im -
plied no-strike agreem ent and, thus; constituted unpro-
tected conduct, or, instead, w hether the m em orial day
provision (at least w here the U nion satisfies its term s)
expressly negated the im plied no-strike clause. W e find
the latter reading of the contract persuasive, and thus
conclude that the m em orial days rem ained protected.
C ertainly, the parties'collective-bargaining agreem ent
contains an im plied no-strike agreem ent that, under
G atew ay C oal, w ould generally prohibit.w ork stoppages.
T he m em orial days called at the N orth R iver M ine w ere,
by definition, w ork stoppages. T he parties'agreem ent,
how ever, expressly allow ed the U nion to call up to 10
m em orial day periods during the term of the agreem ent
upon reasonable notice to the E m ployer. A nd, on its
face, the m em orial day provision places no restrictions
on the U nion's ability to call m em orial days for w hatever
reason it chooses.
C onsistent w ith that reading, the stipulation, as w ell as
the court and arbitration decisions appended as exhibits
to the stipulation,5 show that, historically, the U nion has
called m em orial days for all sorts of reasons, including to
allow tim e off for local officers to attend union conven-
tions, to perm it em ployees (m ore than an em ployer
w ould allow ) to take advantage of the opening of hunting
season, and in support of grievances over safety issues. 6
Indeed, one of the attached court decisions in w hich the
3 T he stipulation stated that "the history and purpose of the M em orial
P eriods C lause w as addressed" in the attached decisions.
6 A rc h o f W e s t V irg in ia v . M in e W o rk e rs L o c a l 5 9 5 8 , C ivil A ctio n
N o . 2 :9 6 -2 0 0 8 (S .D . W .V a. N o v . 2 5 1 9 9 6 ); E a ste rn A sso cia te d C o a l
C o rp ., W e lls P la n t a n d M in e W o rke rs D istrict 1 7 , L o ca l 7 8 1 , C a se N o.
02-17-04-176 (A rb. K auffm an, F eb. 28, 2005); M in e W o rk e rs D is tric t
2 3 , L o ca l U n io n 3 0 0 0 v. P e a b o d y C o a l C o . M a rh vick M in e , C ase 88-
23-91-72 (A rb. P helan, N ov. 8, 1991).
T h e arb itratio n d ecisio n in M in e W o rk e rs D is tric t 2 3 , L o c a l U n io n
3 0 0 0 v . P e a b o d y C o a l C o . M a rtw ic k M in e , C ase 8 8 -2 3 -9 1 -7 2 (A rb .
P h elan , N o v . 8 , 1 9 9 1 ), is p articu larly in stru ctiv e. T h ere, th e arb itrato r
stated:
A m em orial period is com m only understood to be a tim e set aside to
o b serv e th e m em o ry o f a p articu lar ev en t o r p erso n , b u t in recen t
years, m em orial periods under this provision have been used to pro-
vide em ployees w ith tim e off w ork to participate in certain activities
deem ed im portant by the International U nion, and have also been used
to provide a cooling off period in the course of a w ork stoppage in the
coal fields. T here is no lim itation in the contract w hich restricts the
purpose for w hich a m em orial period m ay be used. .. . In effect, the
m em orial period is an authorized stoppage of w ork w hich is specifi-
cally recognized by the contract....
In another aw ard, the arbitrator stated that the com pany took the po-
sitio n th at "M ere is n o q u estio n th at th e u n io n h as a co n tractu al rig h t
to call m em o rial d ay s w ith o u t g iv in g th e co m p an y a reaso n fo r th e
call." U n ite d M in e W o rke rs D istrict 1 7 , L o ca l 7 8 1 v. E a ste rn A sso ci-
a te d C o a l C o rp ., C ase 01-17-04-176 (F eb. 28, 2005).
L A B O R R E L A T IO N S B O A R D
"purpose of the M em orial Periods C lause w as addressed"
is a U nited S tates D istrict C ourt decision denying a m o-
tion for a prelim inary injunction barring a local of the
U nion from calling m em orial days to further its position
in a dispute over a contractual attendance rule. 7 T h e
com pany argued the stoppages w ere barred by the im -
plied no-strike clause. T he court, relying on G atew ay
C oal, held that the m em orial day clause created an ex-
press exception to the im plied prohibition because it
"gives the U nion a unilateral right to call a m em orial
period . . . as has been show n by the lengthy history of
m em orial periods inclusion in . . . contracts, case author-
ity and arbitration decisions." T he court specifically
found that the contractual right to call m em orial days "is
a bargaining chip that the U nion can use in an often
'fractious'relationship that often exists betw een labor
and m anagem ent in the coal industry."
T hese stipulated facts clearly show that the "purpose
of the M em orial P eriods C lause" w as not lim ited to ad-
dressing issues other than grievances covered by the con-
tract's arbitration clause. T he R espondent m akes no at-
tem pt to show that the parties had a past practice under
w hich a m em orial day could not be called in support of a
grievance. A nd, so far as the record show s, the R espon-
dent never asserted in 2004, w hen 6 such m em orial days
w ere called, that the em ployees'conduct w as unpro-
tected.
In fact, the R espondent's response to the N orth R iver
M ine m em orial day stoppages negates its G atew ay C oal
argum ent. T he R espondent's am endm ent of the L O A
perm itted em ployees to continue to receive a bonus even
if they took a m em orial day over an arbitrable grievance
so long as they did so districtw ide. A t the sam e tim e, it
deprived em ployees of a bonus based on taking a m em o-
rial day on a less than districtw ide basis even if it related
to a nonabitrable m atter (such as the death of a m iner).
T he sanction is thus both under-inclusive and over-
inclusive in relation to the R espondent's argum ent. In
the absence of evidence or argum ent that the m em orial
day provisions of the contract should be construed in a
m anner other than one consistent w ith their plain lan-
guage, i.e., as restricting m em orial days only by lim iting
their num ber and requiring reasonable notice, w e are not
w illin g to in terp ret th e im p lied n o -strik e clau se so
broadly as to overcom e the express contract language
authorizing these particular w ork stoppages.
A rc h o f W e s t V irg in ia v . M in e W o rk e rs L o c a l U n io n 5 9 5 8 , C A .
N o. 2:96-2008 (S .D .W .V a. N ov. 25, 1996).
NLRB-FOIA-00008596
A dditional A ffirm ative D efenses
In addition to arguing that the m em orial day periods
did not constitute protected activity under the A ct, the
R espondent raises additional affirm ative defenses.
F irst, the R espondent argues that its m odification of
the bonus plan did not violate the A ct because the action
w as m otivated, not by anim us, but by a desire to m axi-
m ize its ability to share profits w ith em ployees. In sup-
port of this position, it notes that, at the sam e tim e the
bonus plan w as m odified in 2005, all em ployees, includ-
ing those at the N orth R iver M ine, received a 6-percent
bonus and that, as a result of the bonus, the N orth R iver
em ployees received m ore than $720,000.
W e find this argum ent unavailing. S im ply put, the R e-
spondent acknow ledges m odifying the em ployees'bonus
plan, in a restrictive m anner, as a result of the N orth
R iver em ployees'protected activity. T he m odifications,
in turn, threaten to strip em ployees of any bonus under
the plan if they engage in sim ilar protected activity. 8 T h e
fact that this adverse action w as accom panied by a bonus
paym ent is irrelevant. W hat is significant is the reason-
able and foreseeable effect the R espondent's action
w ould have on em ployees continuing to assert their pro-
tected rights.9
S econd, the R espondent argues that the 1995 L O A re-
served to it the unfettered right to m odify the bonus plan.
A lthough the language of the L O A perm itted the R e-
spondent to m ake changes to the plan over objections by
the U nion, it does not follow , that the R espondent re-
'U nder the bonus policy as it existed prior to the 2005 changes,em -
ployees w ould experience a dim inution of their bonus directly propor-
tional to the num ber of days they ceased w ork as a result of a m em orial
period. U nder the new policy, em ployees w ho take even a single m e-
m orial day on a less than districtw ide basis forfeit their entire bonus for
the year, regardless of the overall profitability of the R espondent or
w hether the m ine w here the em ployees are em ployed m eets its produc-
tion goals.N ot surprisingly,the U nion regarded that change as adverse
to em ployees'interests. T hat the U nion did not thereafter call a local
m em orial day, and em ployees did not suffer the consequent loss of
bonus paym ents does not,as R espondent argues,com pel a dism issal of
the com plaint. It is long settled that actual loss is not necessary to
establish a violation.See e.g., F ord M otor C o., 131 N L R B 1462,1487
(1961). Indeed,here,the lack of loss m ay speak to the chilling effect
the R espondent's bonus change had on em ployees'exercise of their
Sec.7 rights.
9 A ccepting the R espondent'

s argum ent w ould perm it em ployers to
nullify the right to strike contained in Sec. 7 of the A ct and expressly
preserved in S ec. 13. A n em ployer m ay believe that strikes cost it
m oney,m ay believe that threatening em ployees w ith adverse econom ic
action if they strike w ill increase its revenue, and m ay even intend to
share any increased revenue w ith its em ployees,but the A ct rests on a
congressional judgm ent that it is up to em ployees and not their em -
ployer to decide w hen it is in their interest to exercise the right to strike
and the A ct m akes it an unfair labor practice for em ployers to coerce
em ployees in the exercise of their rights, as the change in the bonus
plan plainly did here.
served the right to am end its plan for unlaw ful reasons.
It is w ell established that a party cannot exercise its con-
tractual rights in violation of the A ct. R eno H ilton R e-
sorts, 326 N L R B 1421 (1998), enfd. 196 F .3d 1275
(D .C . C ir. 1999); accord: R G C (U SA ) M ineral Sands,
Inc.v.NLR B , 281 F.3d 442 (4th C ir. 2002); NLR B v.Joy
Technologies,Inc., 990 F.2d 104 (3d C ir.1993).
Finally,citing C entral Illinois P ublic Service C o., 326
N L R B 928 (1998), request for review denied sub nom .
E lectrical W orkers L ocal 702 v. N L R B ,

215 F .3d 11
(D .C . C ir. 2000), the R espondent asserts that its m odifi-
cation of the bonus plan w as the equivalent of locking
o u t strik in g em p lo y ees, i.e., b attlin g o n e eco n o m ic
w eapon w ith another.
C entral Illinois involved the legality of an em ployer's
lockout in response to its em ployees'use of a variety of
pressure tactics short of a traditional, open-ended strike,
during negotiations for a successor collective-bargaining
agreem ent.1 T he B oard assum ed, w ithout deciding, that
the inside gam e tactics w ere protected activity and ana-
lyzed the facts using the "inherently destructive" test set
forth in N L R B v. G reat D ane T railers, Inc., 388 U .S . 26
(1967). A fter determ ining that the lockout w as not in-
herently destructive of im portant em ployee rights and
that the harm w as "com paratively slight," the B oard next
assessed w hether the em ployer possessed a legitim ate
business justification for engaging in the lockout. C on-
cluding that the lockout w as a legitim ate econom ic
w eapon em ployed in response to the U nion's tactics in
support of its bargaining position, the B oard m ajority
declined to find a violation.

C entral Illinois, 326 N L R B
at 929-934.
W e decline to consider this argum ent. T he parties
jointly m oved the B oard to decide this case based on a
stipulation that included a joint "statem ent of the issues
presented for review ." T hat statem ent asked the B oard to
consider only "[w ]hether, under W right Line, the E m -
ployer violated S ections 8(a)(3) and (1)." In effect, the
R espondent is now asking us to apply the alternative
G reat D ane analysis. In our view , the argum ent is in-
consistent w ith the term s of the stipulation)'
19 T he tactics included refusing to w ork voluntary overtim e,present-
ing grievances en m asse,and parking com pany vehicles in the evenings
in a m anner m aking it m ore difficult for the em ployer to respond to
after-hour service em ergencies.
E ven if w e had been properly presented w ith this argum ent, w e
w ould find it baseless.A n em ployer can,under certain circum stances,
lockout all its em ployees as a defense against certain form s of protected
activity,see,e.g., International Shoe C o., 93 N L R B 907 (1951), and
cases cited in A m erican ship B uilding, 380 U .S.300,307 (1965),and
even, under appropriate circum stances, lockout all its em ployees in
order to pressure them to com e to term s on an agreem ent. Id. at 318.
B ut w hat an em ployer cannot do is selectively lockout or otherw ise
punish only those em ployees w ho engage in protected conduct. See,
NLRB-FOIA-00008597
D ECISIO N S O F TH E N A TIO N A L LA BO R RELA TIO N S BO A RD
O n the basis of all of the foregoing, w e find that the
R espondent violated S ection 8(a)(3) and (1) by m odify-
ing its bonus plan in response to its em ployees'exercise
of a protected, contractual right. H aving so found, w e
find it unnecessary to decide w hether the sam e conduct
also violated S ection 8(a)(5) because the rem edy w ould
not be substantially different.
CO N CLU SIO N S O F LA W
1. T he R espondent P ittsburg & M idw ay C oal M ining
C om pany is an em ployer w ithin the m eaning of S ection
2(2),(6),and (7) of the A ct.
2. U nited M ine W orkers U nion is a labor organization
w ithin the m eaning of Section 2(5) of the A ct.
3.(a) T he follow ing em ployees of the R espondent w ho
are em ployed at the R espondent's N orth R iver M ine,
herein called the N orth R iver M ine unit, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective-bargaining
w ithin the m eaning of Section 9(b) of the A ct:
A ll classified em ployees engaged in the production of
coal,including rem oval of overburden and coal w aste,
preparation,processing and cleaning of coal and trans-
portation of coal (except by w aterw ay or rail notow ned
by E m ployer),repair and m aintenance w ork norm ally
perform ed at the m ine site or at a central shop of the
E m ployer and m aintenance of gob piles and m ine roads
and w ork of the type custom arily related to all of the
above; but excluding coal inspectors, w eigh bosses
w here em ployees are paid by the ton, w atchm en,
clerks,engineering and technical forces w orking at or
from a district or local m ine office,essential supervi-
sors such as m ine forem en or assistant m ine forem en
w ho,in the usual perform ance of their duties m ay m ake
exam inations for gas as prescribed by law and such
other supervisors as are in charge of any class of labor
inside or outside the m ines and w ho perform no pro-
duction w ork.
(b) Since 1988 and at all m aterial tim es, the U nion, by
virtue of Section 9(a) of the A ct, has been the designated
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the
N orth R iver M ine unit.
are em ployed at the R espondent's K em m erer M ine,
herein called the K em m erer M ine unit, constitute a unit
e.g., Schenk P acking C o., 301 N LR B 487 (1991).Such a selective
lockoutw as notin any w ay upheld in C entral Illinois and itis precisely
such a selective sanction thatis atissue here.

C entral Illinois sim ply
does notprovide the form ofbroad im m unity foreconom ic retaliation
orthe threatofsuch retaliation againstem ployees w ho engage in pro-
tected activity ofthe form soughtby the Respondentin this case.
appropriate ,for the purpose of collective bargaining
portation of coal in and around the m ine to a screening,
crushing,w ashing or other preparation facility,or other
m ine-related operation,repair and m aintenance w ork
norm ally perform ed at the m ine site or at a central shop
of the E m ployer, m aintenance of m ine roads, rough
grading in m ine reclam ation w ork and w ork custom ar-
ily related to all of the above; but excluding coal in-
spectors, w eigh bosses w here em ployees are paid by
the ton, w atchm en, clerks, engineering and technical
forces w orking at or from a district or local m ine office,
essential supervisors such as m ine forem en or assistant
m ine forem en w ho, in the usual perform ance of their
duties m ay m ake exam inations for gas as prescribed by
law and such other supervisors as are in charge of any
class of labor inside or outside the m ines and w ho per-
form no production w ork.
K em m erer M ine unit.
are em p loyed at th e R esp ond en t's M cK inley M ine,
herein called M e M cK inley M ine unit, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining
portation of coal in and around the m ine and to a
screening,crushing,w ashing or other preparation facil-
ity,or other m ine-related operation (except by w ater-
w ay or rail not ow ned by P & M ) and m aintenance of
gob piles and m ine roads,and w ork custom arily related
to all of the above; but excluding w atchm en, clerks,
engineering and technical forces of P& M w orking at or
from a D istrict or L ocal m ine office, and supervisors
such as m ine forem en, assistant m ine forem en, and
such other supervisors as are in charge of any class of
labor inside or outside of the m ine and w ho perform no
production w ork.
M cK inley M ine unit.
NLRB-FOIA-00008598
6.(a) A t all m aterial tim es, the follow ing em ployees
w ho w ere em ployed at the R espondent's Y ork C anyon
M ine, herein called the Y ork C anyon M ine unit, consti-
tuted a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining w ithin the m eaning of Section 9(b) of the A ct:
portation of coal (except by w aterw ay or rail not ow ned
by the E m ployer, repair and m aintenance w ork nor-
m ally perform ed at the m ine site or at a central shop of
the E m ployer and m aintenance of gob piles and m ine
roads and w ork of the type custom arily related to all of
the above; but excluding coal inspectors and w eight
bosses w here em ployees are paid by the ton, w atch-
m en, clerks, engineering and technical forces of the
E m ployer, w orking at or from a district or local m ine
office,and supervisors such as m ine forem en and assis-
tant m ine forem en w ho,in the perform ance of their du-
ties m ay m ake exam ination for gas as prescribed by
law and such other supervisors as are in charge of any
class of labor inside or outside the m ines and w ho per-
form no production w ork.
(b) S ince 1988, the U nion, by virtue of S ection 9(a) of
th e A ct, w as th e d esig n ated ex clu siv e co llectiv e-
bargaining representative of the Y ork M ine unit.
7. B y discrim inatorily m odifying its C hevron S uccess
Sharing plan in response to the U nion's calling of m em o-
rial periods at the N orth R iver M ine, the R espondent has
engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices w ithin
the m eaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the A ct.
R EM ED Y
H aving found that the R espondent has violated Section
8(a)(3) and (1) of the A ct by m odifying the C hevron
S uccess S haring plan to require that em ployees forfeit
bonuses in the event that the U nion calls contractually
sanctioned m em orial days on other than a districtw ide
basis, w e shall order that it cease and desist and take cer-
tain affirm ative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the A ct. In the event that the R espondent has w ithheld
bonuses in response to the calling of m em orial days pur-
suant to the collective-bargaining agreem ents then in
effect, w e shall order that the R espondent m ake em ploy-
ees w hole for the am ount of the bonuses, w ith interest as
com puted in N ew H orizons for the R etarded, 283 N L R B
1173 (1987).
O R D ER
T he R espondent, P ittsburg & M idw ay C oal M ining
C om pany, E nglew ood, C olorado, it officers, agents, suc-
cessors,and assigns,shall
1. C ease and desist from
(a) D iscrim inatorily m odifying its C hevron S uccess
S haring plan to require that em ployees forfeit bonuses if
the U nion calls contractually sanctioned m em orial peri-
ods on less than a districtw ide basis.
(b) In any like or related m anner interfering w ith, re-
training, or coercing its em ployees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the A ct.
2. T ake the follow ing affirm ative actions necessary to
effectuate the policies of the A ct.
(a) R escind the discrim inatory m odification of its
C hevron Success Sharing plan that requires em ployees to
forfeit of bonuses in the event the U nion calls m em orial
days on less than a districtw ide basis.
(b) M ake em ployees w hole for any lost bonuses occa-
sioned by the im plem entation of the discrim inatory
m odification of the C hevron S uccess S haring plan, w ith
interest.
(c) P reserve and, w ithin 14 days of a request, or such
additional tim e as the R egional D irector m ay allow for
good cause show n, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the B oard or its agents, all payroll records, so-
cial security paym ent records, tim ecards, personnel re-
cords and reports, records relating to the calculation and
paym ent of the bonuses, and all other records, including
an electronic copy of such records if stored in electronic
form , necessary to analyze the am ount of backpay due
under the term s of this O rder.
(d) W ithin 14 days after service by the R egion, post at
its N orth R iver M ine in A labam a, K em m erer M ine in
W yom ing, M cK inley M ine in N ew M exico, and, if re-
opened, its Y ork C anyon M ine in N ew M exico, copies of
the attached notice m arked "A ppendix." I2 C opies of the
notice, on form s provided by the R egional D irector for
R egion 27, after being signed by the R espondent's au-
thorized representative, shall be posted by the R espon-
dent and m aintained for 60 consecutive days in con-
spicuous places including all places w here notices to
em ployees are custom arily posted. R easonable steps
shall be taken by the R espondent to ensure that the no-
tices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other
m aterial.
(e) W ithin 14 days of service by the R egion, duplicate
and m ail, at its ow n expense and after being signed by
the R espondent's authorized representative, copies of the
notice to all current em ployees and form er em ployees
em ployed by the R espondent at any tim e since F ebruary
12 If this O rder is enforced by a judgm ent of a U nited States court of
appeals, the w ords in the notice reading "Posted by O rder of the N a-
tional L abor R elations B oard" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judg-
m ent of the U nited States C ourt of A ppeals E nforcing an O rder of the
N ational L abor R elations B oard."
NLRB-FOIA-00008599
D ECISIO N S O F TH E N A TIO N A L LA BO R RELA TIO N S BO A RD
2005 at the form er Y ork C anyon M ine in N ew M exico,
and at any other m ine involved in these proceedings if
during their pendency the R espondent has gone out of
business there or closed it.
(f) W ithin 21 days after service by the R egion, file
w ith the R egional D irector a sw orn certification of a re-
sponsible official on a form provided by the R egion at-
testing to the steps that the R espondent has taken to
com ply.
D ated, W ashington, D .C . S eptem ber 29, 2010
W ilm a B .L iebm an,
Chairm an
Craig B ecker,
M em ber
M ark G aston Pearce,
M em ber
(SEA L)
N A TIO N A L LA BO R RELA TIO N S BO A RD
A PPE N D IX
N O TICE TO EM PLO Y EES
PO STED BY O RD ER O F TH E
N A TIO N A L LA BO R RELA TIO N S BO A RD
A n A gency of the U nited States G overnm ent
T he N ational L abor R elations B oard has found that w e vio-
lated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey
this notice.
FE D E R A L L A W G IV E S Y O U T H E R IG H T T O
Form ,join,or assist a union
C hoose representatives to bargain w ith us on
your behalf
A ct together w ith other em ployees for your bene-
fit and protection
C hoose not to engage in any of these protected
activities.
W E W IL L N O T discrim inatorily m odify our C hevron
S uccess S haring plan to require that you forfeit bonuses
if the U nion calls contractually sanctioned m em orial pe-
riods on less than a districtw ide basis.
W E W IL L N O T in any like or related m anner interfere
w ith, retrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed by Section 7 of the N ational L abor R elations
A ct.
W E W IL L rescind the discrim inatory m odification to the
C hevron Success Sharing plan.
W E W IL L m ake you w hole for any lost bonuses occa-
sioned by our im plem entation of the discrim inatory
m odification of the bonus plan,w ith interest.
TH E PITTSB U R G & M ID W A Y CO A L M IN IN G
CO M PA N Y
NLRB-FOIA-00008600
Microsoft Outlook
non-responsive
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00008601
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008602
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008603
Microsoft Outlook
non-responsive
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00008604
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008605
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008606
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Flanagan, Kevin P.
Ahearn, Richard L.
Platt, Nancy
Boeing
Hi Rich I left a message on Thursday regarding payment for the videos. Is that something the Region
can handle, or should that be routed through headquarters? Thanks.
__
Kevin P. Flanagan
1099 14th Street, N.W., Suite 8600
Washington, DC 20570
phone: (202) 273-2938
fax: (202) 273-1799
e-mail: Kevin.Flanagan@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-00008607
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Todd, Dianne; Pomerantz, Anne; Jablonski, Colleen G.

RE: memo in Boeing
Monday 9 am?
From: Todd, Dianne
To: Pomerantz, Anne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Cc: Ahearn, Richard L.; '
Subject: RE: memo in Boeing
Colleen also brought up some concerns she had regarding the language of the proposed order that I
would like to discuss. Will there be time on Monday? Here is the draft proposed order language.
Anne, Ive also attached the memo.
Thanks,
Dianne
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00008608
Ex. 5 Deliberative
To: Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Cc: Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: memo in Boeing
Dianne/Colleen,
E.6 Privacy
Thanks much.
Anne
NLRB-FOIA-00008609
Anne P. Pomerantz
NLRB-FOIA-00008610
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Pomerantz, Anne
Monday, December 06, 2010 6:10 PM
Posner, Charles
Ahearn, Richard L.; Davidson, Linda L.
RE: Request for Information about Use of Investigative Subpoenas
Investigatory subpoena log FY 2010 (read only).doc
Charles,
Please see the attached for our Seattle-supervised cases. Linda will be submitting a separate log covering sub-Region
36. Thanks.
Anne
From: Posner, Charles
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:11 AM
To: ML-Regional Directors (R)
Cc: ML-HQ-GC Field RA's/ARD's; ML-HQ-Ops District 1; ML-HQ-Ops District 2; ML-HQ-Ops District 3; ML-HQ-Ops District
4; Siegel, Richard A.; Purcell, Anne G.; Davidson, Linda L.; Vance, Will J.; Cestare, Thomas W.
Subject: Request for Information about Use of Investigative Subpoenas
Non-responsive
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008611
Recipient
Read
Posner, Charles
Read: 12/7/2010 12:34 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
Read: 12/6/2010 6:30 PM
Davidson, Linda L.
Read: 12/6/2010 7:01 PM
Mills, Kathlyn
Read: 12/6/2010 6:16 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00008612
Region 19
Investigatory Subpoena Log
Fiscal Year 2010
Case Name and
Number
Name of
Witness
Evidence Sought
Date
issued
Brief description of basis for
issuance
Any petition to
revoke and/or
enforcement
proceedings
Case in
Compliance
Status (Yes
or No)
Regional
Determination
(If one has
been reached)
Sub enfmt
action
initiated /
successful
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008613
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008614
Case Name and
Number
Name of
Witness
Evidence Sought
Date
issued
Brief description of basis for
issuance
Any petition to
revoke and/or
enforcement
proceedings
Case in
Compliance
Status (Yes
or No)
Regional
Determination
(If one has
been reached)
Sub enfmt
action
initiated /
successful
No
No
Advice
No
Non-Responsive
Boeing Company
CA-32431
Cust. of
Records
Information regarding second

7/28/10
(1) Sub-DT (Todd/Jablonski)
787 assembly and surge lines
Non-Responsive
C:\IGCShared\in\499\1.doc
11/4/2011
Page 3
NLRB-FOIA-00008615
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008616
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Connolly, Ryan E.
Pomerantz, Anne
Non-Responsive
Let me know if you want to talk this afternoon, after today I am out until next Tuesday. I can update you on what we are
doing in Boeing and what that means for my schedule, thanks.
From: Mills, Kathlyn
To: Connolly, Ryan E.
Cc: Sweeney, Brian
Subject:
Non-Responsive
From: Mills, Kathlyn
To: Pomerantz, Anne; Rooker, Karen; Sanders, Daniel; Hickey, Daniel
Subject:
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008617
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008618
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008619
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008620
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008621
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008622
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008623
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008624
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008625
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008626
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008627
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008628
Microsoft Outlook
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme;
Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise
FW : Draft for submission to Advice
CPT.19-CA-32431.Boeing 4-18-11 at 4-14pm.doc
Importance:
High
From:
Sent:
To:
Exemption 5
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00008629
NLRB-FOIA-00008630
NLRB-FOIA-00008631
NLRB-FOIA-00008632
NLRB-FOIA-00008633
NLRB-FOIA-00008634
NLRB-FOIA-00008635
NLRB-FOIA-00008636
NLRB-FOIA-00008637
NLRB-FOIA-00008638
NLRB-FOIA-00008639
Microsoft Outlook
Ahearn, Richard L.
Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise; Finch, Peter G.; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd,
Dianne
FW : seattletimes.com: S.C. Gov. Haley: GOP candidates should talk about unions, NLRB
complaint against Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
From:
Ahearn's personal email address
Subject: seattletimes.com: S.C. Gov. Haley: GOP candidates should talk about unions, NLRB
complaint against Boeing
This message was sent to you by
Exemption 6
as a service of The Seattle Times
http://www.seattletimes.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S.C. Gov. Haley: GOP candidates should talk about unions, NLRB complaint against Boeing
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said Wednesday she wants Republican presidential hopefuls,
who will be debating in her state shortly, to address how they would deal with unions and a
complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014893514_apscscgovernor1stldwritethru.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-00008640
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Friday, May 13, 2011 3:16 PM
Pomerantz, Anne
Finch, Peter G.
Boeing, 19-CA-32431; Letter to Kilberg re Settlement
5-13.pdf
M-L.A.
NLRB-FOIA-00008641
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008642
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008643
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008644
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008645
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008646
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Friday, May 13, 2011 4:52 PM
'Kilberg P.C., W illiam'
Finch, Peter G.
Boeing, 19-CA-32431
SET.19-CA-32431.Boeing SA & NTE May 13.pdf
Please see attached.
Mara-Louise Anzalone
Attorney
National Labor Relations Board, Region 19
2948 Jackson Federal Building
915 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98174-1078
206.220.6315 (p)
206.220.6305 (f)
NLRB-FOIA-00008647
NA T IO NA L L A B O R R E L A T IO NS B O A R D
R egion 19
T elephone:
(206) 220-6315
Facsim ile:
(206) 220-6305
915 Second A venue
E-m ail: m ara-louise.anzalone@ nlrb.gov
Seattle, W ashington
98174-1078
M ay 13, 2011
V IA EM AIL W ilberg(E D gibsondunn.corril
W ashington, D C 20036-5306
R e:
C ase 19-C A -32431
D ear M r. K ilberg:
I enjoyed speaking w ith you and your trial team this w eek. I am pleased that w e all
anticipate an am iable and highly professional w orking relationship throughout this proceeding.
A s requested, attached for your review and com m ent is the w ritten draft Settlem ent
A greem ent and N otice to E m ployees that w e discussed. Iw ould like to reiterate that the A cting
m ake.
In addition, as discussed, the A cting G eneral C ounsel w ould be h appy to consider any
non-B oard settlem ent that is acceptable to both you and the C harging Party.
W e understand
be a preferable alternative.
To that end, itis the A cting G eneral C ounsel's continued hope that
the parties m ake a good-faith effort to explore a non-B oard resolution, and w e stand ready to
Y ours very trV y,
M ara-L ouise A n
ne
A ttachm ent:
Settlem ent A greem ent and N otice to E m ployees
NLRB-FOIA-00008648
I.st-C om plaint
U pdated V il
U NITED STA TES G O V ER NM ENT
NA TIO NA L LA B O R R ELA TIO N S B O A R D
IN TH E M A TTER O F T H E BO EING C O M P A N Y , C A SE 19-C A -32431
The undersigned C harged Party and the undersigned C harging Party, in settlem ent of the above m atter, and subject to the approval of the R egional
D irector for the N ational Labor R elations B oard,H ER EB Y A G R EE A S FO LLO W S:
PO STING O F NO TIC E -
U pon approval of this A greem ent and receipt of the N otices from the R egion, w hich m ay include N otices in m ore
than one language as deem ed appropriate by the R egional D irector, the C harged Party w ill post im m ediately in conspicuous places in and about its
plant/office, including all places w here notices to em ployees/m em bers are custom arily posted, and m aintain for 60 consecutive days from the date of
posting, copies of the attached N otice (and versions in other languages as deem ed appropriate by the R egional D irector) m ade a part hereof, said
N otices to be signed by a responsible official of the C harged Party and the date of actual posting to be show n thereon. In the event this A greem ent is
in settlem ent of a charge against a union, the union w ill subm itforthw ith signed copies of said N otice to the R egional D irector w ho w ill forw ard
them to the em ployer w hose em ployees are involved herein, for posting, the em ployer w illing, in conspicuous places in and about the em ployer's
plant w here they shall be m aintained for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting. Further, in the event that the charged union m aintains such
In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by e-m ail, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
or o ther electronic m eans, if the C harged Party custom arily com m unicates w ith its em ployees or m em bers by such m eans. The electronic posting
shall rem ain posted for 60 consecutive days from the d ate it w as originally posted. The C harged Party w ill e-m ail the R egion's C om pliance O fficer
at w am es.loranp@ nlrb.gov w ith a link to the electronic posting location on the sam e day as the posting. In the event that passw ords or other log-on
inform ation is required to access the electronic p osting, the C harged Party agrees to provide such access inform ation to the R egion's C om pliance
O fficer. Ifthe N otice is distributed via e-m ail, the charged party w ill forw ard a copy ofthe e-m ail distributed to the R egional C om pliance O fficer.
C O M PLIA NC E W ITH N O T IC E -
The C harged Party w ill com ply w ith all the terins and provisions of said N otice.
B A C K P A Y ---W ithin 14 days from approval of this agreem ent the C harged Party w ill m ake w hole the em ployee(s) nam ed below by paym ent to
each of them of the am ount opposite each nam e. The C harged Party w ill m ake appropriate w ithholdings for each nam ed em ployee.
SC O P E O F T H E A G R E E M E N T - T his A greem ent settles only the allegations in the above-captioned case(s), and does notc onstitute a
settlem ent of any other case(s) or m atters. It does not preclude persons from filing charges, the G eneral C ounsel from prosecuting com plaints, or the
such m atters are know n to the G eneral C ounsel or are readily discoverable. The G eneral C ounselreserves the right to u se the evidence o btained in
the investigation and prosecution of the above-captioned case(s) for any relevant purpose in the litigation of this or any other case(s), and a judge, the
R E F U SA L T O ISSU E C O M P L A IN T - in the event the C harging Party fails o r refuses to becom e a party to this A greem ent, and if in the
R egional D irector's discretion it w ill effectuate the policies of the N ational Labor R elations A ct, the R egional D irector shall decline to issue a
C om plaint herein (or a new C om plaint if one has b een w ithdraw n pursuant to the term s of this A greem ent), and this A greem ent shall be betw een the
C harged Party and the undersigned R egional D irector. A review of such action m ay be obtained pursuant to Section 102.19 of the R ules and
R egulations of the B oard ifa request for sam e is filed w ithin 14 days thereof.This A greem ent shall be nulland void if the G eneral C ounseld oes not
sustain the R egional D irector's action in the event of a review . A pproval of this A greem ent by the R egional D irector shall constitute w ithdraw al of
any C om plaint(s) and N otice of H earing heretofore issued in the above captioned case(s), as w ell as any answ er(s) filed in response.
A U T H O R IZ A T IO N T O P R O V ID E C O M P L IA N C E IN F O R M A T IO N A N D N O T IC E S D IR E C T L Y T O C H A R G E D P A R T Y .
Counsel for the Charged P arty authorizes the Regional O ffice to forw ard the cover letter describing the g eneral expectations and
instructions to achieve com pliance, a conform ed settlem ent, original notices and a certification of posting directly to the Charged
Party. Ifsuch authorization is granted, Counsel w ill be sim ultaneously served w ith a courtesy copy ofthese docum ents.
N o
Y es
Initials
Initials
PER FO R M A N C E -
Perform ance by the C harged Party with the term s and provisions ofthis Agreem ent shallcom m ence im m ediately after the
Agreem ent is approved by the Regional Director, or if the Charging Party does not enter into this Agreem ent, perform ance shall com m ence
im m ediately upon receipt by the Charged Party ofnotice thatno review has been requested orthat the General Counsel hassustained the Regional
Director.
The Charged Party agrees thatin case ofnon-com pliance with any ofthe term s ofthis Settlem entAgreem ent by the Charged Party, and after 14 days
notice from the Regional Directorofthe National LaborRelations Board ofsuch non-com pliance withoutrem edy by the Charged Party,the Regional
Director will reissue the com plaint previously issued on [date] in the instant case(s).Thereafter, the General Counsel may file a m otion fordefault
judgm ent with the Board on the allegations ofthe com plaint. The Charged Party understands and agreesthat the allegations of the aforem entioned
com plaintwill be deem ed adm itted and its Answer to such com plaint will be considered withdrawn. The only issue that may be raised before the
Board iswhether the Charged Party defaulted on the term s ofthis Settlem entAgreem ent.The Board m ay then, withoutnecessity oftrial or any other
NLRB-FOIA-00008649
PL -C om plaint
U pdated 4/11
proceeding, find all allegations of the com plaint to be true and m ake findings of factand conclusions of law consistent w ith those allegations adverse
to the C harged Party on all issues raised by the pleadings. The B oard m ay then issue an order providing a fW I rem edy for the violations found as is
appropriate to rem edy such violations. The p arties further agree that a U .S. C ourt ofA ppeals Judgm ent m ay be entered enforcing the B oard order ex
parte,after service or attem pted service upon C harged Party[R espondent at the lastaddress provided to the G eneralC ounsel.
N O T IF IC A T IO N O F C O M P L IA N C E - The u ndersigned parties to this A greem ent w ill each notify the R egional D irector in w riting w hat
steps the C harged P arty has taken to com ply herew ith. Such notification shall be given w ithin 5 days, and again after 60 days, from the date of the
approval of this A greem ent. In the event the C harging Party does n ot enter into this A greem ent, initial notice shall be given w ithin 5 days after
C ontingent upon com pliance w ith the term s and provisions hereof, no further action shall be taken in the above captioned case(s).
D ate
International A ssociation ofM achinists and A erospace
W orkers
By:
D ate
D ate
Schw erin C am pbell B arnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP
A pproved By:
D ate
By:
W illiam J.K i[berg, P.C ., A ttorney

R ecom m ended By:
M ara-Louise A nzalone,F ield A ttorney
R ichard L. A hearn, R egional D irector
NLRB-FOIA-00008650
N O T IC .
FO RM N LRB-4724
(11-02)
TO
POSTED PURSUANT TO
R E
APPROVED BY A R D
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDA
FE D E R A L LA W G IV E S Y O U T H E R IG H T T O :
fo rm , join or assist a union
C hoose representatives to bargain w ith us op y ur behalf
em plo y-e-6s fdr,
'y'o& 6en6 fft-and protection
A ct together w ithothor
C hoose not to engage in-any of these--pro.tected activities
W E W ILL NO T
in -any m anner,interfere'w ith the e xercise of'toe. regoing ri hts,b
that'
-,establish additional 787 D ream liner asseffibl

red Lice or
y lines..
elim inate em ploym ent

opportunities for
our U nion-represented
.:'em ployees in retaliation for your U nion activities, including. past or
future strikes against us.,.,
W E W IL L N O T
W E W ILL NO T
establish additional
787 D ream liner
sourcing supply
lines that
reduce or elim inate . ..

em
ploym e.nt, opportunities
for our U nion-
re'rbsehted'2'em p!oyees
in 'retal,6tion
for' your U nion activities,
including.past or future strikes against us.
W E W ILL NO T
tell you that our decisions regarding the placem ent of additional
,of, participation in, or support for U nion activities, including past or,
W E W ILL NO T
tell you that our decisions regarding the placem ent of sourcing
supply lines
for: additional i'787 D ream liner
assem bly w ork are
m otivated by your authorization of, participation in, or support for
U nion activities, including p asto r future strikes against us.
W E W ILL NO T
im ply that our aw ard of additional or new 787 D ream liner assem bly
w ork is linked to our U nion-rep resented em ployees' authorization
of, participation in, or support for U nion activities, including past or
future strikes against us, or that em ployees w ill be less likely to
gain additional or new 787 D ream liner assem bly w ork because of
T he N ational Labor R elations B oard is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to i
em ployees w ant union representation and it investigates and rem edies unfair labor practic
charge or election petition, you m ay speak confidentially to any agent w ith the B oard's R egioi
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOT
THIS NOTICE M UST REM AIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND I
THIS NOTICE OR COM PLIANCE W ITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE A BOVE REGIONAL O F
NLRB-FOIA-00008651
E S
E M PL O Y
AGENCY OF THE
the
second
787
D ream liner
assem bly
-n6 in ''Everett,
and w e will assem ble 787 D ream -lihe :.ai-ro''

an es',,using
parts and supplies from our Seattle

W ashingtofi,-, 6fid' Portland,
O regon, area sourcing supply lines.
1 y
T he B o6i6q'C om p"
V
(Em ployer)
By:
(Title)
D ate:
C ase 19-C A -32205
915 Second A ve., 2 9 th Floor
Seattle, W A
98174
T elephone: (206) 220-6300
H ours of O peration: 8:15 a.m . to 4:45 p.m .
force the N ational Labor R elations A ct. Itconducts secret-ballot elections to determ ine w hether
;by em ployers and unions. To find out m ore about your rights under the A ct and how to file a
IO ffice setforth below . Y ou m ay also obtain inform ation from the B oard's w ebsite: w w w .nlrb.gov.
ST NOT BE ALTERED,DEFACED,OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING
'E'S COMPLIANCE OFFICER,

NLRB-FOIA-00008652
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Friday, May 13, 2011 7:03 PM
'campbell@workerlaw.com'; 'flora@workerlaw.com'
Ahearn, Richard L.; Pomerantz, Anne; Finch, Peter G.
Boeing, 19-CA-32431
SET.19-CA-32431.Boeing SA & NTE May 13.pdf
Please see attached, which we sent out today. I can get you up to speed on our latest discussions with Respondents counsel
on Monday at 10, as planned. However, if you want to speak earlier, please give me a call on my cell (360-434-2998).
Mara-Louise Anzalone
Attorney
National Labor Relations Board, Region 19
2948 Jackson Federal Building
915 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98174-1078
206.220.6315 (p)
206.220.6305 (f)
NLRB-FOIA-00008653
NA T IO NA L L A B O R R E L A T IO NS B O A R D
R egion 19
T elephone:
(206) 220-6315
Facsim ile:
(206) 220-6305
915 Second A venue
E-m ail: m ara-louise.anzalone@ nlrb.gov
Seattle, W ashington
98174-1078
M ay 13, 2011
V IA EM AIL W ilberg(E D gibsondunn.corril
R e:
C ase 19-C A -32431
D ear M r. K ilberg:
I enjoyed speaking w ith you and your trial team this w eek. I am pleased that w e all
anticipate an am iable and highly professional w orking relationship throughout this proceeding.
A s requested, attached for your review and com m ent is the w ritten draft Settlem ent
A greem ent and N otice to E m ployees that w e discussed. Iw ould like to reiterate that the A cting
m ake.
In addition, as discussed, the A cting G eneral C ounsel w ould be h appy to consider any
non-B oard settlem ent that is acceptable to both you and the C harging Party.
W e understand
be a preferable alternative.
To that end, itis the A cting G eneral C ounsel's continued hope that
the parties m ake a good-faith effort to explore a non-B oard resolution, and w e stand ready to
Y ours very trV y,
M ara-L ouise A n
ne
A ttachm ent:
Settlem ent A greem ent and N otice to E m ployees
NLRB-FOIA-00008654
I.st-C om plaint
U pdated V il
U NITED STA TES G O V ER NM ENT
NA TIO NA L LA B O R R ELA TIO N S B O A R D
IN TH E M A TTER O F T H E BO EING C O M P A N Y , C A SE 19-C A -32431
The undersigned C harged Party and the undersigned C harging Party, in settlem ent of the above m atter, and subject to the approval of the R egional
D irector for the N ational Labor R elations B oard,H ER EB Y A G R EE A S FO LLO W S:
PO STING O F NO TIC E -
U pon approval of this A greem ent and receipt of the N otices from the R egion, w hich m ay include N otices in m ore
than one language as deem ed appropriate by the R egional D irector, the C harged Party w ill post im m ediately in conspicuous places in and about its
plant/office, including all places w here notices to em ployees/m em bers are custom arily posted, and m aintain for 60 consecutive days from the date of
posting, copies of the attached N otice (and versions in other languages as deem ed appropriate by the R egional D irector) m ade a part hereof, said
N otices to be signed by a responsible official of the C harged Party and the date of actual posting to be show n thereon. In the event this A greem ent is
in settlem ent of a charge against a union, the union w ill subm itforthw ith signed copies of said N otice to the R egional D irector w ho w ill forw ard
them to the em ployer w hose em ployees are involved herein, for posting, the em ployer w illing, in conspicuous places in and about the em ployer's
plant w here they shall be m aintained for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting. Further, in the event that the charged union m aintains such
In addition to physical posting of paper notices, notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by e-m ail, posting on an intranet or an internet site,
or o ther electronic m eans, if the C harged Party custom arily com m unicates w ith its em ployees or m em bers by such m eans. The electronic posting
shall rem ain posted for 60 consecutive days from the d ate it w as originally posted. The C harged Party w ill e-m ail the R egion's C om pliance O fficer
at w am es.loranp@ nlrb.gov w ith a link to the electronic posting location on the sam e day as the posting. In the event that passw ords or other log-on
inform ation is required to access the electronic p osting, the C harged Party agrees to provide such access inform ation to the R egion's C om pliance
O fficer. Ifthe N otice is distributed via e-m ail, the charged party w ill forw ard a copy ofthe e-m ail distributed to the R egional C om pliance O fficer.
C O M PLIA NC E W ITH N O T IC E -
The C harged Party w ill com ply w ith all the terins and provisions of said N otice.
B A C K P A Y ---W ithin 14 days from approval of this agreem ent the C harged Party w ill m ake w hole the em ployee(s) nam ed below by paym ent to
each of them of the am ount opposite each nam e. The C harged Party w ill m ake appropriate w ithholdings for each nam ed em ployee.
SC O P E O F T H E A G R E E M E N T - T his A greem ent settles only the allegations in the above-captioned case(s), and does notc onstitute a
settlem ent of any other case(s) or m atters. It does not preclude persons from filing charges, the G eneral C ounsel from prosecuting com plaints, or the
such m atters are know n to the G eneral C ounsel or are readily discoverable. The G eneral C ounselreserves the right to u se the evidence o btained in
the investigation and prosecution of the above-captioned case(s) for any relevant purpose in the litigation of this or any other case(s), and a judge, the
R E F U SA L T O ISSU E C O M P L A IN T - in the event the C harging Party fails o r refuses to becom e a party to this A greem ent, and if in the
R egional D irector's discretion it w ill effectuate the policies of the N ational Labor R elations A ct, the R egional D irector shall decline to issue a
C om plaint herein (or a new C om plaint if one has b een w ithdraw n pursuant to the term s of this A greem ent), and this A greem ent shall be betw een the
C harged Party and the undersigned R egional D irector. A review of such action m ay be obtained pursuant to Section 102.19 of the R ules and
R egulations of the B oard ifa request for sam e is filed w ithin 14 days thereof.This A greem ent shall be nulland void if the G eneral C ounseld oes not
sustain the R egional D irector's action in the event of a review . A pproval of this A greem ent by the R egional D irector shall constitute w ithdraw al of
any C om plaint(s) and N otice of H earing heretofore issued in the above captioned case(s), as w ell as any answ er(s) filed in response.
A U T H O R IZ A T IO N T O P R O V ID E C O M P L IA N C E IN F O R M A T IO N A N D N O T IC E S D IR E C T L Y T O C H A R G E D P A R T Y .
Counsel for the Charged P arty authorizes the Regional O ffice to forw ard the cover letter describing the g eneral expectations and
instructions to achieve com pliance, a conform ed settlem ent, original notices and a certification of posting directly to the Charged
Party. Ifsuch authorization is granted, Counsel w ill be sim ultaneously served w ith a courtesy copy ofthese docum ents.
N o
Y es
Initials
Initials
PER FO R M A N C E -
Perform ance by the C harged Party with the term s and provisions ofthis Agreem ent shallcom m ence im m ediately after the
Agreem ent is approved by the Regional Director, or if the Charging Party does not enter into this Agreem ent, perform ance shall com m ence
im m ediately upon receipt by the Charged Party ofnotice thatno review has been requested orthat the General Counsel hassustained the Regional
Director.
The Charged Party agrees thatin case ofnon-com pliance with any ofthe term s ofthis Settlem entAgreem ent by the Charged Party, and after 14 days
notice from the Regional Directorofthe National LaborRelations Board ofsuch non-com pliance withoutrem edy by the Charged Party,the Regional
Director will reissue the com plaint previously issued on [date] in the instant case(s).Thereafter, the General Counsel may file a m otion fordefault
judgm ent with the Board on the allegations ofthe com plaint. The Charged Party understands and agreesthat the allegations of the aforem entioned
com plaintwill be deem ed adm itted and its Answer to such com plaint will be considered withdrawn. The only issue that may be raised before the
Board iswhether the Charged Party defaulted on the term s ofthis Settlem entAgreem ent.The Board m ay then, withoutnecessity oftrial or any other
NLRB-FOIA-00008655
PL -C om plaint
U pdated 4/11
proceeding, find all allegations of the com plaint to be true and m ake findings of factand conclusions of law consistent w ith those allegations adverse
to the C harged Party on all issues raised by the pleadings. The B oard m ay then issue an order providing a fW I rem edy for the violations found as is
appropriate to rem edy such violations. The p arties further agree that a U .S. C ourt ofA ppeals Judgm ent m ay be entered enforcing the B oard order ex
parte,after service or attem pted service upon C harged Party[R espondent at the lastaddress provided to the G eneralC ounsel.
N O T IF IC A T IO N O F C O M P L IA N C E - The u ndersigned parties to this A greem ent w ill each notify the R egional D irector in w riting w hat
steps the C harged P arty has taken to com ply herew ith. Such notification shall be given w ithin 5 days, and again after 60 days, from the date of the
approval of this A greem ent. In the event the C harging Party does n ot enter into this A greem ent, initial notice shall be given w ithin 5 days after
C ontingent upon com pliance w ith the term s and provisions hereof, no further action shall be taken in the above captioned case(s).
D ate
International A ssociation ofM achinists and A erospace
W orkers
By:
D ate
D ate
Schw erin C am pbell B arnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP
A pproved By:
D ate
By:
W illiam J.K i[berg, P.C ., A ttorney

R ecom m ended By:
M ara-Louise A nzalone,F ield A ttorney
R ichard L. A hearn, R egional D irector
NLRB-FOIA-00008656
N O T IC .
FO RM N LRB-4724
(11-02)
TO
POSTED PURSUANT TO
R E
APPROVED BY A R D
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDA
FE D E R A L LA W G IV E S Y O U T H E R IG H T T O :
fo rm , join or assist a union
C hoose representatives to bargain w ith us op y ur behalf
em plo y-e-6s fdr,
'y'o& 6en6 fft-and protection
A ct together w ithothor
C hoose not to engage in-any of these--pro.tected activities
W E W ILL NO T
in -any m anner,interfere'w ith the e xercise of'toe. regoing ri hts,b
that'
-,establish additional 787 D ream liner asseffibl

red Lice or
y lines..
elim inate em ploym ent

opportunities for
our U nion-represented
.:'em ployees in retaliation for your U nion activities, including. past or
future strikes against us.,.,
W E W IL L N O T
W E W ILL NO T
establish additional
787 D ream liner
sourcing supply
lines that
reduce or elim inate . ..

em
ploym e.nt, opportunities
for our U nion-
re'rbsehted'2'em p!oyees
in 'retal,6tion
for' your U nion activities,
including.past or future strikes against us.
W E W ILL NO T
tell you that our decisions regarding the placem ent of additional
,of, participation in, or support for U nion activities, including past or,
W E W ILL NO T
tell you that our decisions regarding the placem ent of sourcing
supply lines
for: additional i'787 D ream liner
assem bly w ork are
m otivated by your authorization of, participation in, or support for
U nion activities, including p asto r future strikes against us.
W E W ILL NO T
im ply that our aw ard of additional or new 787 D ream liner assem bly
w ork is linked to our U nion-rep resented em ployees' authorization
of, participation in, or support for U nion activities, including past or
future strikes against us, or that em ployees w ill be less likely to
gain additional or new 787 D ream liner assem bly w ork because of
T he N ational Labor R elations B oard is an independent Federal agency created in 1935 to i
em ployees w ant union representation and it investigates and rem edies unfair labor practic
charge or election petition, you m ay speak confidentially to any agent w ith the B oard's R egioi
THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NOT
THIS NOTICE M UST REM AIN POSTED FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF POSTING AND I
THIS NOTICE OR COM PLIANCE W ITH ITS PROVISIONS MAY BE DIRECTED TO THE A BOVE REGIONAL O F
NLRB-FOIA-00008657
E S
E M PL O Y
AGENCY OF THE
the
second
787
D ream liner
assem bly
-n6 in ''Everett,
and w e will assem ble 787 D ream -lihe :.ai-ro''

an es',,using
parts and supplies from our Seattle

W ashingtofi,-, 6fid' Portland,
O regon, area sourcing supply lines.
1 y
T he B o6i6q'C om p"
V
(Em ployer)
By:
(Title)
D ate:
C ase 19-C A -32205
915 Second A ve., 2 9 th Floor
Seattle, W A
98174
T elephone: (206) 220-6300
H ours of O peration: 8:15 a.m . to 4:45 p.m .
force the N ational Labor R elations A ct. Itconducts secret-ballot elections to determ ine w hether
;by em ployers and unions. To find out m ore about your rights under the A ct and how to file a
IO ffice setforth below . Y ou m ay also obtain inform ation from the B oard's w ebsite: w w w .nlrb.gov.
ST NOT BE ALTERED,DEFACED,OR COVERED BY ANY OTHER MATERIAL. ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING
'E'S COMPLIANCE OFFICER,

NLRB-FOIA-00008658
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Boeing, Case 19-CA-32431 (Congressional Inquiry)
John Kline and Phil Roe 5-17-11 (final edit in Region).doc
Set forth below are
Exemption 5
Rich
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008659
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008660
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008661
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008662
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008663
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008664
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008665
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Farrell, Ellen;
FW : response to mos. 3 and 4
3. All documents and communications that support the NLRB's position that work is being
"transferred" in this case; and
4. Past precedent that supports a finding that Boeing violated Section 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(1) of the
NLRA when it decided to locate, not transfer, a second assembly line.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008666
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.;
Farrell, Ellen; Moskowitz, Eric G.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: Boeing, Case 19-CA-32431 (Congressional Inquiry)
My bad; please ignore the attachment; I only intended to transmit the message below and the attachment with respect to
3 and 4. We will be meeting here re. #2 and get back to you.
Rich
a, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Moskowitz, Eric G.; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW: Boeing, Case 19-CA-32431 (Congressional Inquiry)
Set forth below are
Exemption 5
Rich
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008667
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008668
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Exemption 5
In number 1,
Best regards,
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00008669
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008670
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008671
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008672
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008673
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008674
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008675
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008676
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise; Finch, Peter G.
FW : Kline and Roe ltr
R-Kline and R-Roe ltr.doc; image001.jpg; image002.gif
See me please.
Thx.
To: Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: FW: Kline and Roe ltr
Final version. Unless somebody expresses a reservation very soon, I will sign it and
have it delivered to Jose.
Subject: Kline and Roe ltr
NLRB-FOIA-00008677
NLRB-FOIA-00008678
NLRB-FOIA-00008679
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008680
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008681
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008682
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008683
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008684
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Monday, May 23, 2011 1:02 PM
FW : Issa response
Most recent draft.
L.
Eric
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00008685
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008686
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008687
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008688
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008689
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008690
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008691
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008692
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Pomerantz, Anne
Fw: Issa response
--------------------------
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Sent: Tue May 24 09:46:45 2011
Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
L.
Exemption 5
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008693
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
NLRB-FOIA-00008694
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008695
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008696
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008697
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008698
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008699
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008700
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pomerantz, Anne
Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir,
Jayme; Ferguson, John H.; Moskowitz, Eric G.
RE: Issa response
Exemption 5
Typo found on p.2:
Exemption 5
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008701
From: Garza, Jose
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
G.
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne
Exemption 5
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
Richard L.
Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
2
NLRB-FOIA-00008702
L.
Well that was easy.
Exemption 5
L.
Exemption 5
Richard L.
Boeing section.
non-responsive
Eric
202-273-2931
Richard L.
Tracking:
3
NLRB-FOIA-00008703
Read
Recipient
Garza, Jose
Ahearn, Richard L.
Read: 5/24/2011 1:24 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Mattina, Celeste J.
Read: 5/24/2011 12:33 PM
Farrell, Ellen
Read: 5/24/2011 12:56 PM
Sophir, Jayme
Ferguson, John H.
Read: 5/24/2011 3:12 PM
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Read: 5/24/2011 1:24 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00008704
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
For discussion at 11 am meeting tomorrow.
Rich
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad

1
NLRB-FOIA-00008705
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00008706
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008707
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Pomerantz, Anne
Please call the trial team at 206 220 6347 for the 2 pm (EDST) call.
Rich
--------------------------
To: Garza, Jose
Sent: Tue Jun 28 07:22:15 2011

Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)

1
NLRB-FOIA-00008708
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00008709
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Fw: Draft Response to Continuing Doc Production request
--------------------------
To: Garza, Jose
Sent: Tue Jun 28 07:22:15 2011

Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)

1
NLRB-FOIA-00008710
help.
Jose
Exemption 5
Sent from my iPad
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00008711
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008712
787 Line 2 incentives: WA vs SC Leeham News and Comment
Leeham News and Comment
Intelligence for the Aviation Industry
About
Leehams Enviro-Aerospace (TM)
Conferences
Media Resources
Comments by Readers
Type text to search here...
Home > Boeing > 787 Line 2 incentives: WA vs SC
Submit
RSS feed
787 Line 2 incentives: WA vs SC
September 29, 2009
Go to comments
Leave a comment
Email Subscription
Enter your email address to subscribe to this
Some media and a few politicians misinterpreted the study released yesterday by Washington
blog and receive notifications of new posts by
State, as well as not having correct what South Carolina is or isnt doing, to land production Line
email.
2 for the 787.
Sign me up!
The misinterpretation comes from headlines and conclusions that Washington wont offer new
incentives to Boeing to win Line 2. First, this ignores that new Boeing Commercial Aircraft CEO
Jim Albaugh told Gov. Christine Gregoire that Boeing isnt asking anything of the Statethat the
decision comes down to what accord might be reached with the IAM to remove the threat of
Associations
Aerospace Futures Alliance (WA State)
future strikes.
Boeing IAM Site
(Boeings response to the study also overlooked the fact that Albaugh said the company wasnt
Boeing SPEEA
asking for anything.)
British American Business Council
Second, the Washington State Legislature is not in session until January. This means the
governor cant offer incentives unless she were to call a special sessionbut what is the point if
Pacific Northwest Aerospace Alliance
Pacific Northwest Defense Coalition
Boeings Albaugh says the issue is not between the State and Boeing but between Boeing and
Royal Aeronautical Society-Seattle
the union?
Branch
With this being the case, what was the governor to do? Since Albaugh is new to BCA and new to
Washington (he was CEO of Boeings defense unit is St. Louis, MO) it makes sense to give him a
Aviation News-Commercial
report about Washingtons business climate vs. South Carolina, which is competing for Line 2. For
Aerospace Industry News
Albaugh, this will all be new information. Who knows if when the time comes for a decision and
Air Courier News
some kind of agreement is reached with the IAM whether the decision might be so close that a
Air Transport Intelligence (subscription)
better understanding of the business climate for Albaughs recommendation might or might not
make the difference?
Aviation Mainline News
Aviation Now
As for what South Carolina is or is not offering, media here picked up on a story written by
Aviation Press Releases
media there quoting a legislator as saying the state is offering Boeing a deal it cant refuse.
Aviation Regional Airlines News
Naturally we were curious, so we called the reporter who wrote the story and asked for details
there werent any in the story.
Aviation Today
Avitrader News Headlines
It turns out the legislator may have been talking to hear himself talk. The South Carolina
Legislature, like Washington, is adjourned until January and the State cant offer anything new
until thenjust like Washington. Boeing can only benefit from previously granted concessions,
just like Washington, and doesnt have anything new to consider, according to our discussion
with the reporter.
Bill Virgin
Boeing Frontiers
Commercial Aviation Online
(Subscription)
Flight Global
Finally, we have this thought on the whole union issue. Yes, the IAM local in Charleston voted to
decertify. But if Boeing puts Line 2 there, the IAM (or any other union) will be back in a year (the
minimum time until a new effort is permitted) to try and reorganize the workers. No union is
going to let any facility like this of any company like Boeing go forward without attempting to
MSNBC Aviation
Skycontrol News Headlines
UBM Aviation Daily News
organize. The odds may be against itlook at all the failed attempts at organizing Delta Air Lines
employees in Georgia, for examplebut to assume there will never be a union at Charleston is a
reach. Never is a long time.
Aviation News-Defense
Armed Forces Journal
Defense Industry Daily
Share this:
Print
Email
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Reddit
Defense News
Defense Tech
Digg
Boeing
DOD Buzz
National Defense Magazine
787 Line 2, Boeing, Charleston SC , Washington State
Leave a comment
Trackback
Trackbacks (1)
Comments (4)
Commentaries
AeroTurboPower
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2009/09/29/787-line-2-incentives-wa-vs-sc/[7/14/2011 3:52:15 PM]
NLRB-FOIA-00008713
September 29, 2009 at 4:09 pm | #1
Reply | Quote
AirInsight Blog
AirInsight podcasts
A point is missed here Scott.
Onemancrew
Sure Boeing isnt asking. It never asks. It lays out the oblique threat. It then
engages is a systematic campaign of psychological warfare to achieve its ends.
It leaves the possible negative outcomes to be formulated and fretted over in
the minds of the easily frightend.
Aspire Aviation
Aviation Week blogs
Boeing Defense blog
Holly Hegemann
IAG Podcasts
It then fully expects riches to be tossed at its feet. Without anything being
given in return.
IAM 751 Blog
Jon Ostrower
And that ethod has worked famously well every time except with the IAM, who
Kieran Daly
seem unmoveable by such tactics. But on politicians, business leaders, and the
Lexington Institute (Loren Thompson)
general public well, its a very effective gameplan, and a spectacle to observe
Mary Kirby
every time it occurs.
Plane Talking
Im sure there are a few Boeing execs a little stunned that it didnt work this
Randy's Journal (Randy Tinseth of
time insofar as the Governor is concerend. ( I am as well). She doesnt appear
Boeing)
willing to allow the unemployment or workers comp systems go insolvent like so
Richard Aboulafia
many other states, no pony up additional revenues she doesnt have to
give.Whodathunkit from a left leaning Democrat governor.
Steve Trimble
Uresh Sheth
As far as the unions go, I have called in all my favors and contacted every
source i have, and they all say the same thing:
Companies-Commercial
Boing isnt making any offers. There are no behind the scenes negotiations
Airbus
ongoing. Boeing expects they can break the unions nerve and have them come
Boeing
calling, with no quid pro quo of any sort.
Boeing New Airplanes
I suspect they are wrong again. While I think an agreement is achievable,
Bombardier
Boeing doesnt want one, and least not one that is has to make any
Embraer
compromises to attain.
Irkut
Anyway, If I read the labor laws correctly, there is nothing the Union leadership
can do without consent of the rank and file anyway, and the timelines seem far
to short to put new terms together and have any sort of vote on the matter.
Companies-Defense
Airbus Military
Boeing Defense, Space & Security
October 1, 2009 at 5:11 am | #2
Reply | Quote
EADS
Northrop Grumman
Scott Good piece. Thx.
Christopher
It is obvious that Boeings overwhelming imperative is to assure their very
Dye
skeptical customers that they can max 787 production ASAP. If they dont, they
are likely to lose lots of orders, or worst case, the entire 787 program could
collapse.
These potential disasters are very real because a growing number of 787
customers are buying the A330 as interim lift, and more will do so the longer
Boeing delays giving a credible schedule for achieving max production and
volume deliveries. At some point, it will make economic sense for Airbus to offer
787 customers linked contracts between the A330 and the A350-800, if they
have not done so already; ie buy 330s now and keep them as long as you want,
Engines
CFM International
CFM LEAP-X
Engine Alliance
GE Engines
IAE Engines
Pratt & Whitney
PW PurePower Engine
Rolls-Royce
and then replace them with 358s in the middle of the next decade. These
contracts may be appealing to 787 customers even if Boeing announces early
max production dates because the airlines may not believe anything Boeing tells
them about the 787, while at least so far Airbus has not lied about the 350.
If their were any doubt that the 787 program is on the brink of disaster, they
disappeared when Boeing brought Albaugh to ComAirplanes. Why else bring him
from IDS, Boeings cash cow where he has been quite successful?
Thus, Boeing needs a second 787 production line ASAP (and to ramp up its
suppliers to do this), and avoid crippling strikes once that production level is
achieved. A Charleston facility makes sense because they can move very fast to
build, there is space to build (while there is a lot less in Seattle), and at least for
the moment there is no strike risk.
The problem is in Seattle, where there will be at least one 787 production line
for years, no matter what happens in South Carolina. The IAM does not seem to
Resources
Aircraft and Aviation Suppliers
AirInsight (Consulting)
AirInsight Reports/Studies
IAG Podcasts (free)
IAG Podcasts (Small Price)
Leeham Co. LLC Corporate Site
Twelves Unlimited
TV News Partner
KIRO TV Seattle (Boeing News)
KIRO TV Seattle (Home)
grasp that the dominant issue here is to keep the 787s customers on board so
as to preserve the millions of jobs created by the planes huge backlog of about
Archives
830 planes and major potential for future production which will keep both lines
NLRB-FOIA-00008714
July 2011
humming for years to come. It is NOT about the normal cycle of labor contract
negociations dealing with wages, benefits, etc.
June 2011
May 2011
The union has legitimately blamed this mess entirely on Boeings unbelievable
April 2011
incompetence in running whole 787 program. It makes me sick at heart to think
March 2011
about it. But blaming Boeing will not solve the problem Boeing have created
and assure jobs. The problem is to credibly assure airlines of a max production
schedule that will get them their planes at some time they can live with. To do
February 2011
January 2011
that the union must make some agreement not to strike, both in Seattle and in
December 2010
Charleston if the union gets certified there, and do it very quickly. Certainly
November 2010
there are fair ways to do this, but even if the onlly ways are unfair, it needs to
October 2010
be done to assure long terms jobs in the 787 program.
September 2010
August 2010
October 1, 2009 at 5:19 am | #3
July 2010
Reply | Quote
June 2010
Chris makes a good point: its long past time to stop pointing fingers of blame
leehamnet
(on both sides). Boeing officials have acknowledged they went too far on
May 2010
outsourcing and plan to bring some of this back in (though one can argue how
April 2010
much is enough, and Boeing hasnt said). This is a pretty good admission.
March 2010
February 2010
IAM made its point with its strike last year, but now what? We certainly havent
January 2010
heard any mea culpas on anything. A little humility wouldnt hurt.
December 2009
November 2009
October 1, 2009 at 5:24 am | #4
Reply | Quote
Quick follow up. See Brandan Sobies piece in http://www.Flightglobal.com today
Christopher
entitled, Qantas Jetstar Opts for Higher Gross Weight A330s. The idea is that
Dye
this new model can do much of what the 787 was designed for.
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
Leave a Reply
March 2009
February 2009
Enter your comment here...
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
Guest
Log In
Log In
Log In
April 2008
March 2008
Email (required)
(Not published)
Name (required)
February 2008
Leeham News and Comment
McCain puts Boeing, USAF in his sights
Website
for $1bn overrun on four tankers July
14, 2011
Market sees 737 sales lagging, but
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Post Comment
matches 2010so far July 14, 2011
Podcast on Classic piston-liners July 12,
Notify me of new posts via email.
2011
A321neo best to replace 757: AirInsight
July 12, 2011
Boeing files permits for SC for new assembly building
Washington State pitches 787 Line 2
How will Boeing profit from tanker
contract? July 12, 2011
September 2009
NLRB-FOIA-00008715
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Aug
13
Oct
Search
Twitter Updates
for $1bn overrun on four tankers
http://dlvr.it/bC0l7 2 hours ago
for $1bn overrun on four tankers
http://wp.me/pcvQh-1fO 2 hours ago
Copyright 2008-2011 Leeham News and Comment
Top
Blog at WordPress.com. Theme: INove by NeoEase.
NLRB-FOIA-00008716
Microsoft Outlook
Subject:
Boeing subpoena - "
NLRB-FOIA-00008717
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Friday, March 25, 2011 5:08 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Mattina, Celeste J.
RE: Boeing
Any time except 1-3 on Tues.
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 3:11 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: FW: Boeing
When do you want to do it? Monday am is bad for me.
From: Kilberg P.C., William [mailto:WKilberg@gibsondunn.com]
Subject: RE: Boeing
Barry: I have heard back from the Judge's office; he would like to have a call either Monday or
Tuesday. Can you give me some times that work for Lafe? 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
From: Kearney, Barry J. [mailto:barry.kearney@nlrb.gov]
To: Kilberg P.C., William
Subject: RE: Boeing
Bill
Is this call necessary? What ever they had to say to one another was said last Friday. I have communicated the Unions
response to the no layoff offer. Isnt it time to move on?
Barry
From: Kilberg P.C., William [mailto:WKilberg@gibsondunn.com]
Subject: RE: Boeing
NLRB-FOIA-00008718
Barry: I got your message; I still do not have an answer although I have reached out again. I
understand that the Judge was traveling and I do not know where he is today. As soon as I
hear something, I will let you know. 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
From: Kearney, Barry J. [mailto:barry.kearney@nlrb.gov]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 9:28 AM
To: Kilberg P.C., William
Subject: Boeing
Bill
I just left you a voice mail message. What is the status of the call between the Judge and Lafe?
Barry
NLRB-FOIA-00008719
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Cleeland, Nancy
Boeing
Thanks, Lafe
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008720
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ok
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 5
. Thanks, Lafe
NLRB-FOIA-00008721
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
FW : Boeing
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: Boeing
Fair enough.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
NLRB-FOIA-00008722
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: Boeing
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 5
Thanks, Lafe
NLRB-FOIA-00008723
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: Boeing
I definitely think that the 5 of us should meet (including Celeste), and I think it would be a good idea to add Rich (and
maybe others in the Region). Would you set something up? Thanks, Lafe
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: FW: Boeing
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: Boeing
Fair enough.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
Exemption 5
Ellen
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008724
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: Boeing
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 5
Thanks, Lafe
NLRB-FOIA-00008725
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Kearney, Barry J.; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: Boeing
Exemption 5
So tomorrow would be a good day to sort this out.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: RE: Boeing
Exemption 5
Subject: FW: Boeing
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
NLRB-FOIA-00008726
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: Boeing
Fair enough.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: Boeing
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
2
NLRB-FOIA-00008727
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 5
Thanks, Lafe
NLRB-FOIA-00008728
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Kearney, Barry J.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: draft press release in Boeing
I have some strategic ideas that I hope to discuss at the 4 pm meeting.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
From: Sophir, Jayme
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00008729
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme;
Boeing draft press release
Boeingrelease.doc
Heres some suggested edits for the press release, which hopefully comport with the complaint, which I havent seen yet.
NLRB-FOIA-00008730
Ex. 5 deliberative strategy
NLRB-FOIA-00008731
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
FW : one more addition to press release
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008732
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008733
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 6
Solomon, Lafe E.
Lopatka Op-Ed
See this one yet?
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/apr/26/nlrb-complaint-defieslegal-and-business-logicby/
NLRB-FOIA-00008734
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.
bugging you again
Im afraid you cant get away from me. Two things for right now:
Sam Hananel of the AP is writing this morning about the Boeing letter and wants to know:
Exemption 5
The Financial Times and CQ Weekly are both working on bigger pieces about the NLRB in light of this complaint. Im
working on some suggested statements and will email or bring them by later if you are around.
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00008735
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00008736
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.
Shoot I did it again! Sorry, easy to change.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00008737
Microsoft Outlook
Solomon, Lafe E.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Tue May 10 13:56:50 2011
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
available.

1
NLRB-FOIA-00008738
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00008739
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Cleeland, Nancy
FW : Harkin Statement on Attacks on National Labor Relations Board
Fyi:
If you are having trouble viewing this message, you can view the message online.
May 11, 2011
Unsubscribe
Update My Profile
Contact: Justine Sessions / Kate Cyrul
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 11, 2011
(202) 224-3254
Harkin Statement on Attacks on National Labor Relations Board
WASHINGTONToday, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Committee, spoke on the Senate floor to address recent attacks on the National Labor Relations Board regarding its
handling of a complaint against Boeing.
Below are his full remarks as prepared for delivery:
"Mr. President, recently, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against the Boeing Company alleging that
the company violated the National Labor Relations Act. This routine administrative procedure set off a melodramatic
outcry from the business community. A headline on the Wall Street Journals editorial page called it The Death of Right
to Work. South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley declared that it was government-dictated economic larceny. The
senior Senator from Utah, Senator Hatch, warned that foot soldiers of a vast and permanent bureaucracy were trying to
implement a leftist agenda. You would think that capitalism itself was threatened.
"So instead of talking about how we can get Americans working again and get the middle class back on its feet, my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to spend their time on the Senate floor attacking the handling of a
routine unfair labor practice charge. While I dont necessarily think debating this issue is the best use of the Senates time,
I feel compelled to respond because of the disturbing misinformation that has distorted the public discussion of this case.
"They say that a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can put its boots on Id say in the Senate
misinformation travels even faster than that. So its time to set the record straight.
"Here are the facts in this case: Boeing recently decided to locate its production facility for new Dreamliner planes in
South Carolina. The NLRBs complaint alleges that this decision was unlawful retaliation against Boeing workers in
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008740
Washington State, who had previously gone on strike. According to the complaint, Boeing management repeatedly,
publicly stated that they were going to build their new planes in South Carolina rather than Washington because the
unionized workers in Washington went on strike too often. Arguably, this violates the National Labor Relations Act,
which prohibits retaliation against employees who stand up for their rights.
"I have no opinion about whether or not Boeing violated the NLRA. It is not my job to determine the merits of this case,
and, likewise, it is not the job of my colleagues in Congress. We do not know all the facts and have not studied all of the
cases interpreting the law. But I do believe that the case should be decided impartially and should not be derailed by
political interference or opportunism.
"Opponents of workers rights have said that this complaint was issued because President Obamas labor-friendly
appointees on the Board were doing political favors for their union friends. Nothing could be further from the truth.
"This case has been handled without favoritism or political interference. The facts in the case were investigated by
dedicated, strictly nonpartisan career employees of the National Labor Relations Board, and career attorneys reviewed the
legal precedent for the case. Because the case involved novel issues of law, the regional office consulted the Division of
Advice in Washington DC. These are attorneys who are scholars of the law and have studied the legislative intent and the
75 years of decisions by our courts interpreting the NLRA. They carefully reviewed the case and made their
recommendation that the General Counsel should issue a complaint.
"Prior to issuing the complaint, Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon a career employee who spent more than 30 years
working at the NLRB under both Republican and Democrat superiors made every effort to resolve the dispute. Solomon
and the NLRB spent months trying to encourage the two sides to settle the dispute. The parties were unable to come to an
agreement, so the General Counsel issued the complaint on April 20th. A hearing is scheduled for June 14th before an
Administrative Law Judge. Depending on the outcome, the case can be appealed to the National Labor Relations Board
and eventually the Federal courts. That is the process that has been laid out by our laws and, personally, I have faith in that
process. Our system is designed to ensure that the rule of law is applied impartially to all parties. This case has provoked
controversy, and powerful interests have a big stake in the outcome. This makes it all the more important that we protect
the integrity of the process from improper influence.
"The dramatic responses to the complaint have needlessly complicated the issue and the NLRBs process.
There have
been threats to the NLRB budget as well as attempts to link the fate of nominations pending before the Senate HELP
Committee to the outcome of the case. These actions threaten the integrity of our judicial and prosecutorial processes.
This case like any adjudication handled by an independent agency should be determined based on the facts and the law,
not politics.
"In addition to mischaracterizing the NLRBs handling of this case, opponents of workers rights have also
mischaracterized the fundamental issue at stake. Several public officials, including some of my Senate colleagues, have
suggested that this case represents an assault on right to work laws. Again, thats just factually incorrect. There is
absolutely no way that the outcome of this case could affect in any way the right to work laws of any state.
"This case is not about right to work laws its about workers rights. If, indeed, the NLRB General Counsel is able to
prove that Boeing retaliated against Washingtons workers because they stood up for themselves, thats a very serious
violation of the law, and it deserves a very serious sanction.
"This is about far more than just one group of workers in Washington State. Unions are one of the few voices left in our
society speaking up for the little guy, and the rights provided in the NLRA are one of the few tools that workers can use
stand up for fair treatment, including good American jobs that pay good American wages and benefits. If we let powerful
CEOs trample all over these rights without consequences, we might as well give up on having a middle class altogether.
"Thats what this all comes down to. What we are really witnessing here is another example of the Republican assault on
the middle class that has been echoing across the country for months now. Just as people are rising up in states across the
country to tell Governors and other elected leaders not to destroy their rights, we in this body also need to stand up and tell
powerful and politically connected corporate CEOs that they are not above our nations laws.
"Americans understand fairness, and they resent it when the wealthy and powerful manipulate the political system to reap
huge advantages at the expense of working people. Thats exactly whats happening in this case. Powerful corporate
interests are pressuring members of this body to interfere with an independent agency, rather than let justice run its course.
And we should not tolerate this interference.
"Instead, we should turn our attention back to the issues that really matter to American families how we can create jobs
2
NLRB-FOIA-00008741
in Washington, South Carolina, Iowa, and across the country . . . how we can rebuild the middle class . . . and how we can
ensure that working hard and playing by the rules will help you build a better life for your family and your children. I plan
to spend a lot of time in the HELP Committee this year exploring these issues, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle will join me in that effort."
###
HELP Committee Website | News | Hearings | About Chairman Harkin
Update My Profile - Unsubscribe - Privacy Policy
NLRB-FOIA-00008742
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.
FW : ! Senators Alexander, Graham, DeMint Introduce Job Protection Act !
image001.jpg
More from your fansCan we discuss a response?
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Rosen, James [mailto:jrosen@mcclatchydc.com]
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: FW: ! Senators Alexander, Graham, DeMint Introduce Job Protection Act !
Nancy,
As I said, Id appreciate any response even of the no-comment variety just like to get NLRBs voice in the article.
(OF course, I would prefer something a bit better than no-comment, but..!)
On deadline, appreciate your help.
Jim/
James Rosen
McClatchy Newspapers
From: Bishop, Kevin (L. Graham) [mailto:Kevin_Bishop@lgraham.senate.gov]
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: ! Senators Alexander, Graham, DeMint Introduce Job Protection Act !
For Immediate Release: May 12, 2011
Contact:
Jim Jeffries (Alexander) 202-224-7154
Meghan Hughes (Graham) 202-224-5972
Wesley Denton (DeMint) 202-224-6121
Alexander, Graham, DeMint Introduce Job Protection Act
Bill preserves federal laws protection of state right-to-work laws; has 34 Senate Republican
sponsors
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008743
WASHINGTON U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) today
introduced the Job Protection Act (S. 964), a bill to preserve federal laws existing protections of state right-to-work laws.
On April 20, the acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board moved to stop Boeing from building
airplanes at a nonunion plant in South Carolina, suggesting that unionized American company cannot expand its
operations into one of the 22 states with right-to-work laws, which protect a workers right to join or not join a union.
Alexander said: This is not just about South Carolina and its not just about making airplanes this is about jobs in
every state in the country, and whether or not manufacturers are going to be able to make in the United States what they
sell in the United States. I cant think of one single action the federal government would take that would make it harder to
create new jobs in Tennessee than this Boeing complaint, if its allowed to move forward.
Graham said: The NLRB is doing the bidding of the unions at a great cost to South Carolina and our nations economy.
I do not believe unelected bureaucracies should be allowed to go down the road the NLRB is charting. The foundation of
the NLRB complaint against Boeing would destroy the American business communitys ability to negotiate and make
rational business decisions. Our legislation prohibits the use of statements made during negotiations involving legitimate
business concerns to be used as a legal basis for a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. It is time for Congress
to speak out in a common-sense way against the outrageous and frivolous complaint by unelected bureaucrats at the
NLRB.
DeMint said: Right to work states are winning the future for America's economy, yet this administration seems intent on
stamping out this model of success. Right to work states have more business growth, more new jobs, and faster rising
incomes than forced-unionism states. What the NLRB has done in the Boeing case is a threat to workers and businesses in
every state. The NLRB is encouraging companies to take their jobs and investment overseas. This is a reprehensible act
and an obvious kickback to union bosses the President is depending on helping his reelection. Unless we pass this bill,
every worker and business in this nation is under the threat that if they don't do what union bosses want, this
administration will come after you. Businesses have the right to invest in any state in America and states shouldnt be
penalized for protecting the rights of their citizens not to be forced to pay union dues. Right to work states should be
applauded, not attacked, as they are attracting new investment and creating new jobs precisely because their policies
encourage innovation and competition.
The bill would:
clarify that the NLRB would not be able to order an employer to relocate jobs from one location to another.
guarantee an employer the right to decide where to do business within the United States.
protect an employers free speech regarding the costs associated with having a unionized workforce without fear
of such communication being used as evidence in an anti-union discrimination claim.
###
NLRB-FOIA-00008744
NLRB-FOIA-00008745
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Monday, May 16, 2011 9:42 AM
Solomon, Lafe E.
wall street journal interview request
Hi Lafe,
Are we still on for the phone interview with National Journal at 10:30? 10-15 minutes max.
Also, Melanie Trottman of the Wall Street Journal is requesting a 15 minute interview, in person if possible. She asked for
11. What do you think? I told her you cant talk about the Boeing case because were done talking about it. This is what
she said:
But the feature Im planning to do is aimed at Tuesdays paper. Him talking more generally would be fine. He can decline
to comment about Boeing. I want to get into the agencys broad thinking (if in fact there is such a thing. He might say
theres no broad thinking and all of this is decided on a case by case basis.)
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00008746
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Kearney, Barry J.
Purcell, Anne G.
RE: GC memo on bargaining info
Thanks. I thought about it today because some on the right are tying the Dubuque memo to Boeing. I wonder what theyll
say about this memo.
Cc: Purcell, Anne G.
Subject: RE: GC memo on bargaining info
non-responsive
Subject: GC memo on bargaining info
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00008747
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.
Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.
Draft Hearing Invitation Response
Lafe,
Please find attached a draft response to the Issa request to participate in the South Carolina hearing. Also, we should
gather today to talk about the meeting with Mr. Kline. I am available at your convenience.
Thank you,
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00008748
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008749
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008750
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Solomon, Lafe E.
All is well here
Hope all is well over there.
Non-responsive
Jen, Jose and I will finish the response to your invitation to the South Carolina hearing.
By the way, if you were going to go, it would have to be at your own expense You
will be able to sign the letter tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00008751
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: Draft Letter
This is great!
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Fwd: Draft Letter
Sent from my mobile
Begin forwarded message:
From: Leslie Kiernan <lesliekiernan2@me.com>
Date: June 10, 2011 9:16:24 AM EDT
To: "Abruzzo, Jennifer" <Jennifer.Abruzzo@nlrb.gov>, "Solomon, Lafe E."
<Lafe.Solomon@nlrb.gov>, "Mattina, Celeste J." <celeste.mattina@nlrb.gov>
Cc: "lbkiernan@zuckerman.com" <lbkiernan@zuckerman.com>
Subject: Draft Letter
NLRB-FOIA-00008752
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Mattina, Celeste J.
Re: new draft of June 10 letter
Fine with me but
Exemption 5
Sent from my mobile
On Jun 10, 2011, at 12:31 PM, "Mattina, Celeste J." <celeste.mattina@nlrb.gov> wrote:
<image001.jpg>
Final? Please read it one more time and let me know if any further
revisions are warranted. Thanks!!!
<Issa hearing invitation reconsideration.doc>
NLRB-FOIA-00008753
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
I fixed that, thanks!
Mattina, Celeste J.
Solomon, Lafe E.
Will wait to hear from Leslie and send it out then.
Subject: Re: new draft of June 10 letter
Fine with me but
Exemption 5
Sent from my mobile
On Jun 10, 2011, at 12:31 PM, "Mattina, Celeste J." <celeste.mattina@nlrb.gov> wrote:
<image001.jpg>
Final? Please read it one more time and let me know if any further
revisions are warranted. Thanks!!!
<Issa hearing invitation reconsideration.doc>
NLRB-FOIA-00008754
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Ferguson, John H.
openingIssa3.doc
Heres my stab at incorporating todays comments.
NLRB-FOIA-00008755
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008756
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008757
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008758
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008759
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008760
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Solomon, Lafe E.
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy
Final Opening Statement
OpeningIssafinal.doc
NLRB-FOIA-00008761
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008762
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008763
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008764
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008765
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.
Lets talk later on today. What is on the CD we are giving to them?
To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.
Jose,
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Jennifer
From: Garza, Jose
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-00008766
Microsoft Outlook
Sophir, Jayme
Monday, October 04, 2010 9:03 AM
Karsh, Aaron
RE: new cases
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
non-responsive
Deb has
done a draft of a GC memo in Boeing, but hasnt yet had her agenda with Barry, so I dont want to give it to her yet but its
possible shell have an agenda tomorrow and then have downtime waiting for a GC agenda and could do it. Lets just
hold onto it as a TBA case for a couple of days, and maybe shell be able to take it.
non-responsive
From: Karsh, Aaron
To: Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: new cases
non-responsive
So, sure, let's assign this to one of the volunteers, if one is available.
, Deb is mired in Boeing, and
non-responsive
unavailable
is
then?
From: Sophir, Jayme
To: Karsh, Aaron
non-responsive
From: Karsh, Aaron
To: Sophir, Jayme
NLRB-FOIA-00008767
non-responsive
From: Sophir, Jayme
To: Karsh, Aaron
Subject: new cases
non-responsive
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
Tracking:
2
NLRB-FOIA-00008768
Recipient
Delivery
Karsh, Aaron
Delivered: 10/4/2010 9:03 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00008769
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Sophir, Jayme
FW : Boeing
Jayme
-to bring you into to the loop re the press release discussion.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Fw: Boeing
See if GC avaliable late morning and we will set up conference around GC schedule
--------------------------
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent: Tue Apr 12 17:25:49 2011
Subject: RE: Boeing
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
NLRB-FOIA-00008770
Subject: RE: Boeing
Exemption 5
Subject: FW: Boeing
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: Boeing
Fair enough.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
Exemption 5
Ellen
NLRB-FOIA-00008771
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: Boeing
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 5
Thanks, Lafe
NLRB-FOIA-00008772
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
Farrell, Ellen
RE: Boeing
Thanks.
To: Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW: Boeing
Jayme
-to bring you into to the loop re the press release discussion.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Fw: Boeing
See if GC avaliable late morning and we will set up conference around GC schedule
--------------------------
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent: Tue Apr 12 17:25:49 2011
Subject: RE: Boeing
Exemption 5
Ellen
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008773
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: RE: Boeing
Exemption 5
Subject: FW: Boeing
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: Boeing
Fair enough.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
2
NLRB-FOIA-00008774
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: Boeing
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: Boeing
Nancy
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 5
Thanks, Lafe
Tracking:
3
NLRB-FOIA-00008775
Recipient
Delivery
Farrell, Ellen
Delivered: 4/13/2011 9:28 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00008776
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Farrell, Ellen
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00008777
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008778
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008779
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kearney, Barry J.
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Boeing draft press release
Exemption 5
From: Sophir, Jayme
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00008780
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008781
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008782
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Sophir, Jayme; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; W agner, Anthony R.
Boeing - latest news release
boeingreleasefinal.doc
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-00008783
NLRB-FOIA-00008784
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.;
Cleeland, Nancy
Boeing fact sheet
NLRB Fact Sheet.doc
Hi all,
Here's a draft of the Fact Sheet. I will add the links later. Please take a look when you can. Thanks.
NLRB-FOIA-00008785
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008786
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008787
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008788
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kearney, Barry J.
Friday, May 13, 2011 11:00 AM
FW : Boeing - response to congressional
From: Garza, Jose
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
Subject: FW:
Subject: FW:
My 2 cents.
Rich
Subject:
Here it is.

1
NLRB-FOIA-00008789
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008790
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008791
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008792
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008793
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008794
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008795
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008796
N A ri, )N
1099 N th ST R E E T N W
A L
R o l,
X IiI A I IO N S R O A R .I1
w w w .nlrb.gov
M ay 9 , 2 0 1 1
J. M ichael Luttig,E squire
C h ica g o ,IL 6 0 6 0 6 -1 5 9 6
D ear M r. Luttig:
R e : T h e B o e in q C o m p a n y
C ase 19-C A -32431
T his is in response to your M ay 3 letter to m e concerning the above
captioned case.
statem ents in the press about this m atter. N eedless to say,I don't agree w ith
your contentions. T he re have been num erou s conversa tions b etw een m y office
th is ca se so th at e ach p arty is aw are of the o the r's position . T he ap propria te
------ assertions is -through -therdevelopm ent-o f a n -evidO litiary record -on W hich -a
h -
B oard and ultim ately the C ourts. F inally,w hile our earlier efforts to resolve this
m atter w ere unsuccessful,I still rem ain open to a resolution betw een the parties.
S in ce e l
Lafe/E . S olom on
NLRB-FOIA-00008797
A L A N W IL S O N
ATTO R N EY G EN ER AL
A pril 28,2011
D ear M em bers of C ongress:
T oday,A ttorneys G eneral from across the country joined m e in sending the attached letter to L afe
Solom on, A cting G eneral C ounsel of the N ational L abor R elations B oard, regarding the N L R B 's com plaint
against B oeing.T his com plaint is an ill-conceived retaliatory action filed on behalf of the labor unions.
O ur letter calls on the N L R B to im m ediately w ithdraw their com plaint against B oeing and to cease their
attack on our state,our econom y and our right to w ork.
A s stated in the letter, "the N L R B , through this single proceeding, attem pts to sound the death knell of
the right to w ork. A dditionally, this tenuous com plaint w ill reverberate throughout union and non-union states
alike, as international com panies w ill question the w isdom of locating in a country w here the federal
governm ent interferes in industry w ithout cause or justification."
I sincerely hope that you w ill share our letter w ith your colleagues and w ill join us and in calling upon
M r.Solom on and the N L R B to stop their aggressive actions against South C arolina,our citizens,and our right-
to-w ork.
A s you are aw are,M r.Solom on previously threatened federal litigation against South C arolina,along
w ith A rizona, South D akota, and U tah over the constitutional am endm ents sim ilar to the one 86.2% of South
C arolina voters passed to ensure em ployees m aintained the right to a secret ballot in a union election.T his
w eek,the N L R B announced its intention to go forw ard w ith suits against A rizona and South D akota and that
lim ited resources curtailed its ability to bring action against S outh C arolina and U tah.
T hank you again for all you do for our state in W ashington and please keep m e and m y office inform ed
of actions in W ashington in support of our efforts to stop the N L R B 's attack on our right to w ork.
Sincerely,
J 4 ,fip
A lan W ilson
NLRB-FOIA-00008798
So p h ir, J a y m e
Fro m :
VVillen, D ebra L
S en t:
T u e sd a y, Ja n u a ry 1 1 , 2 0 1 1 1 :2 3 P M
T o :
C ontee, E rne stine R .; K earne y, B arry J.; F arrell, E llen ; S oph ir, Jaym e; S zapiro, M iriam ; K atz, Ju dy; O m b erg, B ob ;
S u b ject: F W : IA M m eeting w ith A G C , Jan. 19
Fro m : Jud e B rya n [m ailto:b rya n @ w o rke rla w .com ]
S e n t: T uesday, January 11, 2011 11:54 A M
T o : W illen, D ebra L
C c: D avid C am pbell
S u b je c t: IA M m eeting w ith A G C
M s. W illen,
In re sponse to your em ail to D a ve C am pb ell, the follow ing p eople w ill be atte nding the m ee ting w ith A G C Lafe S olom o n next
w eek.
R ichard P . M ichalski, G enera l V ice P resident, IA M A W
C hristop her C orso n, G ene ral C ounsel, IA M A W
N eil G la dstein, D ire ctor S trategic R esou rces, IA M A W
M ark B lo ndin, IA M A erosp ace C oo rdinator
T om W rob lew ski, P resident, IA M D istrict Lod ge 75 1
P lea se let us know if there is an y m ore inform ation you nee d.
S incerely,
S chw e rin C am pb ell B arnard lglitzin & Lavitt LL P
S eattle, W A 98119
206-285-2828
1/12/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008799
B lo o m b erg
67
G O VER N M EN T
bw ,
:-A LZEM
W E LC O M E ,
K e lle n
neys ssi
set. A -44s,,
B o ein g C ase Jets b arn a L aw y er to G o o g led V illain
F ro m O b scu rity
ttlithlY hom e
o n t :.
Jen a 1 0 .
g:f.'
1 I:. n sti: in t
;B loom berg: - A ppearing ender threat of a subpoena :501 the only reason
L ate S otornon m ay be uncom fortable w hen U .S . law m akers quesnon unrol-
ls: lab o r ch arg es h e b ro u g h t ag ain st B o ein g C o . to m o rro w .
'I A L E R T S
C E sh a R p e n s,
lit C L IP soA R o
S olom on has becom e a puolic enem y to business groups and their R oputhican 011100. especially after M s A pril 20
coinplaint saying B oeing built a nonunion asseninty plant thr its new 757 D ream ither in S enth C arolina in retaliation
fo r w o rk sto p p ag es b y u n ien s at its S eattle-area aro d u ctio n h u b . B o ein g , th e w o rld 's larg est aero sp ace ccn th an y , h as
denied 5301 m otives.
w e a rs e sti
T h e H o u se O rersh o n t an d G o v ein m en t R efo rm C o m m ittee. h ead ed b y P .ep u b lian R ep resen tath e D arrell rasa o f
C alifornia ris holding tom orrow 's session in N orth C hariest:in. silo 01 105 plant T he hearing's S ee indicates the
reception S alom on m ay receive:ft:intern:dation T hrough R egulation: T he 4099'0 H alting P attern on F ree E nterprise.'
.
.
$ 3 - fo s s
. rester
'In ten tio n to S u b p o en a'
'T h e co m m ittee h as m ad e it d ear th at ills th eir in ten tio n to su b p o en a m e it I d o n o t 'M o n ter:1 y ap p ear: S o o m o n
w ro te in a S lo e 1 0 letter to Ism . S o lo m o n saic h e w o u ld sh o w u p esen tio u n n n e w as co n cern ed ab o u t law m ak ers
q u estio n in g 'an ag en c.r ad in g in its y d asiiiu d icial cap acity ab o u t its d ecisio n s in a p en d in g case:
C ritics say S oiorron is part of a pre-union lig by the N L R B . salon investigates unfair-labor charges by unions against
m an ag em en t. 6 in ce O b arn a's ap p o in tee's g ain ed 0 M ajarity O n Its th sen ein b er b o ard .
S olom on m ay be -the her to im posing big labor's entire agenda: the N ational R ight to W ork C .onuniffee, a group
b ased in S p in g tield , V irg in ia. th at o p p o ses req u irin g w alk ers to jo in u n ien s, said in a F arm s" statem en t.
S olom on, w ho has isarked aS an N L R B attorney under six presidents of both parties. said he has no axe to arind and
w as just doing his job to enforce falr-labor law s w hen ne N ed the B oeing com plaint, w hich S ill adm iritsirative
hearings that began this w eet: in S eattle.
'C am e to M e ,
S t isn 't th at I had S o m e ag en da to go g et th is cam ,'S o lo m on said In a M ay E intem iew . 'T his case cam e to 1 00 , an d i
d ecid ed o n th e lad s an d th e lo w '
S o lom o n's ab be at the N U R E I is d eco ratenw ah w hite oron ics le grow s in M s ert h ours. T h ere's alsea y ello w lave
lam p an d a p o ster w ith im ag es o f H elen a. A rk an sas. h is h o m eto w n .
S olom on w ent to w ant for the N L R B th 1972 as a field investigator. H e m et his w ife 01 32 years, C am , w hen ohs
w elted at the agency. H e tenths N L R B just long enough to gel his law degree al T ulane U niversity in N ew O rleans
an d retu rn ed as a staff-attorney.
E ven eritiC 3 S at: S olom on nas a dry w it and a sharp legal m ind. "I'm fond of L ate:P eter S M aum ber, a form er S L O B
b o arcitn airin an ap p o in ted b y P resid en t G eo rg e W . B u sh . said lo an in terv iew , 'H e th in k s o u tsid e th e b o x :
D isag ree o n A ctio n s
W e Im re, th e in d iv id u als
i . ..
a9sential to m aking m itaisl
e S : d e c ia io n s in th e m tn ta l.
M eet D C 's P o w er P lay ers e
so m e w o rts" S th au m b er said th an in terv iew .
S ch au m b er;a lab o r co n su ltan t fo r d len ts
sad ) as b u sin ess g ro u p s at S th au m b er
C an su len g L L C in teash in g to m said 'h e
d isag rees w ith S o lo rn o n 's.ad io n s as
ailing general counsel and told 0110 50
recently.
'H e ju st said . * T h at's fin e I'v e g o tten y o u
S o lo m o n h as said h e 1 0 5 0 1 0 ream a setiern en t w ith B asin g for six rn m th s b efo re issu in g th e co m p lain t ag ain st th e
com pany.
H e w an ts B oeing to add three 757s a m on th, the nu m ber planned in S outh C arolina, rolls output in W ash ington state.
T hat w ould tree B oeing to use the southern facility, as long as A increases production, w hich the confoanylths
d iacu ssed d o in g .
T he N LR B 0001015101 0115070100 or m ischaractertzed statem ents by B oeing eseeetw es, aecording to

3 M ay letter by
com pany law rer.l. M ichael L ung, N o B oeing w orkern in W ashirnoton state idstjobs or had their w ages reduced,
according C u T im N eale, a spokesm an or the C nicago-nased com pany.
'T he com plaint has raised fundam ental issues, and the acU on 115511 15 really unprecedented: R eath said in an
inteM ew .
S ecret B allo t, F aceb o o k
B usiness sm iths nave criticized zither steps taken by S olom on. H e threatened in Janudry th sue
fo u r states o v er
co n stitu tio n al an ien d m en te-th at g u aran tee w o rk ers a S eel0 h aW in u n io n electicn s an d "elect fed eral ru les allo w in g
em ployers to accept union altorbup cants filed out by a inalont; O t w orkets. S oiornon's office N ed a reinptaint against
A rizona on M ay 0.
D BO X
-T h e u p rn ar o v er cases h e's filed sin ce P resid en t B arad : O b arn a n am ed h im
actin g g en eral co u n sel o f M e N atio n ai L ater R elatio n s B o ard a y ear ag e w an e sh o ts after 3 9 y ears o f relativ e
anonym ity as a career em ployee w ith the federal agenon S olom on said.
*M e gone from one or tw o G oogle pages to hundreds.'S olom on, 61, S aid in an Interdew w ith P ..looinberg
G overnm ent 'N othing really prepared m sfor the nonlegal pans of this job. I never could have im agined any arrow ,
ever.'
Et
R E P ners
LA T E SO LO M O N
H O also banked 3 M oe again st A m erican M edical R esp on se. a C enn ecticn t am buiancs com pan y. fo r brin g a w o rker
w h o d isp arag ed h er m ess o n F aceb o o k . T h e case lo g o a settlem en t in F eb ru ary in w h ich th e co m p an y ag reed to
change its rules or em ployee discussiens aw ay N om w ork according to the N L R B .
Jp G e n e ra l C o e n :Ja r.
r Jilener Leber H S :di:eine
33dera
B om :
n e in 4 , 1 9 4 9 , H e le n a ,
A rk an sas
K aesdyr
W ila:C am and ietildren
C asiiiie: S S , an d -M IN 2 5
'E ducation:
.s.B .A .s , conornIca. B riow n
U ntiersity, 1970
JD .. T ulane'L lnY iersits
975
P i-P y lo n s P o sitio n s'
R ecO rne5 10100
esariiirier
1975: B ecom es adorney .
-d th e N L R B O b o e O r
A ppeals .after brealtfor law
03001
lbrlt: Jp in s b o ard staft
..vorlang S uccessively tor 19
b o ard rh en taers .
s 2n01:B en.om es dim m er or
O ffice of R epresentation
A nneals
s d u n e 2 0 1 9 : B eC en tes .
aC ting general.0eurtsei
W hy H e M atters:
Is allin g g en eral co u n sel
dl M c N L R B . S olom on has
tak en actio n s ag ain st
P eein g an d o th er
co m p an ies th at
R epublicans criticize as
-farenng labor U nions
H ow H p G ot H ere:
in June .2 810. Isreeldeni
B aree.s ()cism e nom inated
S o lem o n t9 b e g en era:
co u n ael an d m ad e th in
actin g g en eral co u n eel
P en d in g S en ate ad io s
Q uote A bout
h o es d eep n u e:in s:0 e
..;:110Ians and great care
and C S pecity is tniniC seid
m arsilaii.B ab so n , a p artn er
at S eY faittiSt,.avv ILO in
N ew d'arr, end althiner
Jfi-S tillse r S ta le S s i's
h an d lin g ty s as w o O as can
'esieV ijscleci. N o one likes to
be aN zused 51 9111100 you.
Idiow in yourlyeart you
n.th.u n 't d o n.
e.'
In H is O w n W ords
00 csntrevorsi: over !S O R B
com plaints he nas tiled:
st really : g o es P al an d
.p.am et in the job in a
political tens in a politica"
year. I try not to take it
pernonally. A t the sam e
ten s. M ak er m y d ecisio n s_
'dem eid'of toe politic-a. A nd
life g ess o n .'
O n the tare or Ins
nom ination es N L R B
,g en eral co u n sel:
.s.12 38-year eihployee.
w hether I'm confirm ed or
n o t-it doesn -taffem
anything. Icon retire_ M y
ratn su s 9 5 , h e's still
read:sing law . I 000 5 .0 0
an o th er m reer it d o esn 't
bother roe.'
S o lo m o n 'n fu tu re.at th e N L R B Is u n certain W h ile R ep u b lican s h av e in d icated th ey w ill N o & h is n o m in atio n as ,
g en eral co u n sel, h e can k eep th e jo b o n en actin g b asis u n til so m eo n e Is In th e p o st N an cy C leeian d , an ag en cy
sp o k esw o m an . said in an e-m ail. H e also co u le retu rn to o ls p rev io u s 1 0 0 0 5 d irecto r 0 1 0 0 1 0 9 5 's o ffice S t
R ep resen tatio n A p p eals.
S olom on said he expects It w Ill all w orn out in the end, 30 00 assured his parents. w ho are In T heir 90s. 5 A rkansas:
1 w as getting so m any si-m alls from rhyferrely m em bers telling m ethat they w ere behind m eths! l diew rits them and
sav."1 M asi:0 C orrllnrttqd m urder. I appredate your support. T his Is O K '
T o can ted th e rep o rters o rith ls sto ry S tep h an ie A rm o u r in W ash in g to n at san n o tin g tith eirib erg .n at H elix
R osenkrantz iM erashington ad rirS enK raritZ tB eleeneberg.net .
T o canted the editor responsible for this story L arry S iebert at lifenertgZ ieentbsrginet.
B looniber
G O V E R N M E N T
=
NLRB-FOIA-00008800
J. M ich ael L u ttig
E x ecu tiv e V ice P resid en t &
G en eral C o u n sel
I.
T h e B o ein g C o m p an y
1 0 0 N R iv ersid e M C 5 0 0 3 -6 0 2 7
C h icag e, IL 6 0 6 0 6 -1 5 9 6
M ay 3,2011
APLAF ArIV 40
L ate E . Solom on, E squire
D ear M r.Solom on:
statem ents attributed to you in the New York Tim es

on A pril 23 about B oeing's
these statem ents, w hich are critical to your case against B oeing,fundam entally
the C om pany.Y O U have a responsibility to correct these m isquotations and
have filed. T hrough these m isquotations and rnischaracterizations, you have done a
gave disservice to T he B oeing C om pany, its executives and Shareholders, and to the
160,000 B oeing em ployees w orldw ide. A nd, of course, you have filed a com plaint
Your Statem entThatB oeing "Transferred" U nion W ork
A s an initial m atter, repeated statem ents in the com plaint allege that B oeing
"rem oved w ork" from Puget Sound (116),"decided to transfer its second 787
D ream liner production line" to South C arolina (17(a)),and "decided to transfer a
sourcing supply program " to South C arolina (118(0).Y our A pril 20 press release
m akes the sam e assertion: "T he N L R B launched an investigation of the tran,sler of
second line w ork in response to charges filed by the M achinists union and tbund
A s you w ell know , no w ork none at all w as "rem oved" or "transferred"
did not previously exist in Puget Sound or elsew here, the second assem bly line could
not have been "rem oved" from , "transferred" or otherw ise "m oved" to South
C arolina. Sim ply put, the w ork that is and w ill be done at our C harleston, South
C arolina final assem bly facility is new w ork, required and added in response to the
historic custom er dem and tbr the 787. N o m em ber of the International A ssociation of
M achinists'union (L A M ) in Puget Sound has lost his or her job, or otherw ise suffered
NLRB-FOIA-00008801
any adverse em ploym ent action,as a result of the placem ent of this new w ork in the
Y our ow n R egional D irector,w hose office you have tasked w ith prosecuting
differently than you.A s the Seattle T iM es reported last year,"R ichard A hearn,the
N L R B regional director investigating the com plaint,said it w ould have been an easier
than placing new w ork in C harleston." D om inic G ates, M achinists .F ile U nfair Labor
C harge A gainst B oeing over C harleston, Seattle T im es,June 4,2010.
Since no actual w ork w as "transferred," it now appears that N L R B officials
are already,via public statem ents,transform ing the theory of the com plaint to say
that,because B oeing com m itted to the State of W ashington that it w ould build all of
the C om pany's 787s in that state,the building of airplanes in South C arolina
spokesw om an,N ancy C leeland,apparently told a new s organization that "the charge
that B oeing is transferring w ork aw ay from union em ployees stem s from the
com pany's original com m itm ent 'to the State of W ashington that it w ould build the
D ream tiner airplanes in this state.
T he prem ise underlying that assertion that B oeing com m itted to the State of
W ashington to build all of the C om pany's 787s in W ashington is false.B oeing did
not com m it to the State of W ashington that it w ould build all of its 787s in that state.
B oeing honored and fully all of its contractual com m itm ents to the State .of
in South C arolina.T he notion that B oeing had som ehow com m itted to W ashington
State to build all 787s in that state is neither m entioned nor even suggested either in
the I.A .M 's charge or in your recently tiled com plaint,and you never asserted that
B oeing had m ade such contractual com m itm ents to the State of W ashington in the
several discussions w e have had w ith you in the m onths preceding your tiling of the
com plaint.H ad you done so,w e w ould have explained toyou w hy such an
understanding w as plainly incorrect.I call upon you to quickly and fully correct the
record on this point.In addition to being W holly uninform ed,it creates the
im pression that you and your office are now in search of a theory that.-w ill support a
predeterm inedoutcom e,even a theory that has nothing to do w ith the 'N ational L abor
R elations A ct.
Your Statem entThatB oeing SoughtTo "Punish" U nion E m ployees
M ischaracterizing w hat B oeing did by calling it a "transfer" of w ork,or
suggesting that B oeing broke com m itm ents to the State of W ashington,is had
concerning the m otives and intent of B oeing's leaders specifically,that senior
B oeing executives sought to "punish" union em ployees and to "threaten" them for
NLRB-FOIA-00008802
their past and possible future strikes,through the C om pany's statem ents and its
location of the second final assem bly line in South C arolina.
T he New York Tim es

quotes you as saying that B oeing "had a consistent
m essage that [the C om pany and its E xecutives] w ere doing this to punish their
G reenhouse, Labor B oard C ase A gainst B oeing P oints to E ights to C om e, N ew Y ork
T im es,A pril 23,2010,em phasis added.) 'N either your com plaint nor the post-hoc
statem ents you and other officials of the N L R B have m ade since the filing of the
com plaint offers a single B oeing statem ent let alone a "consistent m essage" that
B oeing acted to "punish" its em ployees,and,needless to say,you offer no evidence
of this in your national m edia interview either.
T he com plaint alleges that B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes C E O Jim A lbaugh
stated that B oeing "decided to locate its 787 D ream liner second line in South
C arolina because of past U nit strikes,and threatened the loss of future U nit w ork
opportunities because of such strikes.- (C om plaint 116(e).) T he com plaint cites a
M arch 2,2010 interview of M r.A lbaugh by the Seattle T im es,but does not purport to
be quoting any particular statem ent.T he N L R B 's w ebsite,how ever,offers a "fact
sheet" that quotes M r.A lbaugh as saying: "T he overriding factor [in transferring the
line] w as not the business clim ate.A nd it w as not the w ages w e're paying today.It
w as that w e cannot afford to have a w ork stoppage,you know ,every three years.-
httP://1.1111).00 y :ilode :443
It w ould,of course,have been entirely perm issible under existing law for M r.
A lbaugh to have m ade a statem ent that the C om pany considered the econom ic costs
that it w as the sole reason for such decision.B ut M r.A lba -ugh did not even say either
of these things.M r.A lbaugh's .fullstatem entw as as follow s:
W ell I think you can probably say that about all the states in the country right
not the business clim ate and it w as not the w ages w e're paying people today.
It w as that w e can't afford to have a w ork stoppage every three years.

W e
can't afford to continue the rate of escalation of w ages as w e have in the past.
You know ,those are the overriding ./actors.A nd m y bias w as to stay here but
w e could notgetthose tw o issues done despite the bestefforts ofthe U nion
and the best ejlinis of the com pany.
T he italicized sentences w hich w ere deliberately om itted from your office's
presentation of this quotation on its w ebsite m ake clear that M r.A lbaugh w as
NLRB-FOIA-00008803
M oreover,no reasonable reader of M r.A lbaugh's interview w ould depict it as
part of a "consistent m essage" that B oeing sought to "punish" its union em ployees.
M r.A lbaugh expresses his "bias" in favor of Puget Sound and lauds the good-faith
efforts of both sides.H e explains that the com pany's preference w as to locate the
new production line in Puget Sound and that both the com pany and the union m ade
good-faith efforts to accom plish that shared objective.T hus,w hen not m isquoted,it
is noteven arguable that M r.A lbau.gh's statem entconstitutes a "m essage" of
T he com plaint's attem pt to depict a statem ent by Jim M cN erney,B oeing's
C hairm an and C hief E xecutive O fficer,as a threat to punish union em ployees is but
another exam ple of m ischaracterization.T he com plaint alleges that M r.M cN erney
- "m ade an extended statem ent regarding 'diversifying [B oeing's} labor pool and labor
happening every three to four years in Puget Sound." (C om plaint 6(a) (em phasis
added).)
H e did not say that at all.T he allegation is a sleight-of-hand in tw o obvious
respects,accom plished by the selective m isquotation of M r.M cN em ey's actual
statem ents.First,M r.M cN erney w as not m aking an "extended statem ent" about w hy
B oeing selected C harleston.H e w as responding to a reporter's question about the
cost of potentially locating a new assem bly line in C harleston.A nd in fact,the
decision to locate the new final assem bly line in South C arolina had not even been
m ade at the tim e M r.M cN em ey's statem ents w ere m ade.Second,M r.M cN erney
answ ered only the question as to com Parative costs that w as asked.T hus,in the
passages you m isquote and m ischaracterize,he discussed the relative costs of a new
facility in a location other than Puget Sound,versus the potential costs associated
w ith "strikes happening every three to four years in Puget Sound." H e did not say,as
"due to" strikes.
A nd M r.M cN erney did not even rem otely suggest that w hat w ould later turn
out to be the decision to open a new line in C harleston w as in retaliation for such
com plaint. H e did not say,he did not suggest, and he did not im ply in any respect
facility other than in Puget Sound w ould or m ight be m ade to punish the union for
past strikes or because of their pow er to strike in the future.N either did he say,
suggest,or im ply that any existing union w ork w as being transferred to C harleston.
H is answ er cannot be cited in support of the legal theories in the com plaint,m uch less
the sw eeping statem ent you m ade to the New York Tim es about B oeing's "consistent
em ployees.
Finally,M r.M cN em ey's answ er to a reporter's question w as not "posted on
B oeing's intranet w ebsite for all em ployees," m uch less posted for the purpose of
NLRB-FOIA-00008804
sending an illegal m essage under the N L R A ,as the com plaint incorrectly and
N or do any of the other few statem ents you reference in your com plaint
w hich I attach to this letter rem otely suggest an intent to "punish" the C om pany's
unionized.em ployees.Q uite the contrary:.these statem ents show ,at m ost,that the
C om pany considered (am ong m ultiple other factors) the risk and potential costs of
future strikes in deciding w here to locate its new final assem bly facility.T hose have
been deem ed perm issible considerations by an unbroken line of Suprem e C ourt and
N L R B precedent for 45 years.N ot only that,but,as you know ,B oeing reached out to
the IA M in an effort to secure a long-term agreem ent that w ould have resulted in
placing the second line in Puget Sound.A lthough those negotiations w ere not
successful,that effort alone defeats your w holly unsupported claim that B oeing
"punish** the union for paststrikes.
W hat you said to a national new spaper,that B oeing m ade a billion-dollar
provocative allegation against B oeing's leaders.T hose leaders are deeply
com m itted to all of the m en and w om en w ho w ork for the C om pany,those
represented by -unions and those w ho are not.Y our statem ent im plies that B oeing's
m ost senior executives acted out of personal spite and retribution tow ard its labor
union,as opposed to acting in the interests of the C om pany,the C om pany's
w hatsoever.
Y our Statem entT hatB oeing's Statem ents And Actions W ere So D em onstrably
U nlaw fulT hatY ou W ere C om pelled T o F ile T he C om plaint
Y ou also told the New York Tim es that,given the C om pany's so-called
"consistent m essage" that the C om pany intended to "punish" the union for its prior
strikes and its pow er to strike in the future,you had no choice but to issue a
com plaint.(Specifically,you said: "I can't not issue a com plaint in the face of such
over the past six m onths.In particular,it is hard to reconcile w ith w hat has been your
repeated statem ent that you did not believe this w as a m atter in w hich the N L R B
should be involved and that you w ould take no action on the m atter if-B oeing agreed
that it w ould not lay off any 787 em ployees in Puget Sound during the duration of its
collective bargaining agreem ent w ith the IA M .
W e of course understand that you reversed your position and abandoned the
agreem ent that you yourself sought from B oeing after your further discussions w ith
you could have proposed and then agreed to such a resolution il as you now say,you
believed that the statem ents and actions by B oeing and its executives w ere so
NLRB-FOIA-00008805
egregious that the law literally com pelled a com plaint by the N L R B .O f course,the
Your Statem entThatThe C om plaintD oes NotSeek To C lose C harleston
Finally,there is the issue of your articulation of the rem edy sought in this
com plaint.T he com plaint seeks an order directing B oeing to "have the [IA M ]
State of W ashington." N otw ithstanding that you are seeking this rem edy,your office
has been at pains since filing the com plaint to state publicly that this is not equivalent
to an order that B oeing "close its operations in South C arolina."

FociC heek,
available at w w w .nirb.gov (post of A pril 26,2011).W e and the public w ould be
assem bled in C harleston,that w ould of course require the production of all of the
explained repeatedly to you and your staff in our extended discussions .before you
tiled the com plaint.
* * * * * *
B oeing intends to put this pattern of m isquotations and m ischara.cterizations
before the A dm inistrative L aw Judge,and ultim ately,before the 'N ational L abor
w ithdraw al of this com plaint.
Sincerely yours,
.1 1 3 0 11fof
J..M ichaelL uttig
& G eneral C ounsel
A ttachm ent.
NLRB-FOIA-00008806
6(a) - Jam es M cN erney,2009 3rd Q uarter E arnings C all,O ctober 28,2009
....T here w ould be execution challenges associated w ith thatchoice [of C harleston].
B ut keep in m ind that w e've got a pretty good-sized operation dow n in C harleston today.
B ut I think having said all of that,diversifying our labor pool and labor relationship,has
som e benefits.I think the union 1A M and the C om pany have had trouble figuring it out
betw een them selves over the last few contract discussions.
A nd I've got to figure out a w ay to reduce that risk to the C om pany.A nd so som e of the
m odest inefficiencies,for exam ple,associated w ith a m ove to C harleston,are certainly
Sound and the very negative financial im pact of the C om pany,our balance sheet w ould
be a lot stronger today had w e not had a strike last year.O ur custom ers w ould be a lot
happier today,had w e not had a strike last year.A nd the 787 program w ould be in better
shape had w e not.A nd so I don't blam e -- I don't blam e this totally on the union.W e
got to satisfactory satisfy ourselves the m ix isn't different or w e have to diversify our
labor base,
6(b) - "787 Second L ine Q uestions and A nsw ers," 10/28/09
Q 3: W as one site a higher cost than the other?
A : A l! things taken into account,this decision w ill provide econom ic advantages by
host of factors,from natural disasters to hom eland security issues and w ork stoppages.
W e're electing not to get into how individual sites fared in specific areas of the
evaluation.
* * * * * * * *
Q 8: W e understand you w ere pushing the union for a no-strike agreem ent and cam e
close to getting a 10-year deal.O bviously you didn't reach an agreem ent.W as that the
A : It w as an im portant part of our discussion w ith the union,but it w asn't the only
factor in our decision.In the final analysis,this cam e dow n to ensuring our long-term
global com petitiveness and diversifying the com pany to protect against the risk of
production disruptions that can occur for a variety of reasons,from natural disasters,to
agreem ent,w e feltour discussions w ith the TA M w ere productive and focused on the
NLRB-FOIA-00008807
* * * * * * * *
Q 26:Y ou say thathaving a second line in C harleston reduces risk,butif the [A M goes
6(c) -
S e a ttle tim e s article,D ecem ber 7,2009
The second production line "has to be able to go on regardless of w hat's happening over
here," he added.
* * * * * * * *
R ay C onner,vice presidentand generalm anager of supply-chain m anagem entand
operations,senta m essage M onday inform ing allB oeing C om m ercialA irplanes
rudder shop," w hich suggests the tailfin m ay be builtatB oeing C harleston.
- B utProulx said,It's too soon to say w hatw illgo w here."
NLRB-FOIA-00008808
to shiftto a planned rolloutof 10 planes a m onth by the end of 2013.
* * * * * * * *
"W e inform ed the (JA M ) of our plans to begin dualsourcing during the com pany/union
* * * * * * * *
value."
W e'llreview supplier expertise,and w e'llensure thatthe rightlevelof training and
"W e are notm oving any w ork thatB oeing em ployees are currently perform ing w e are
6(d) -
P ugetSound B usiness JournalA rticle,D ecem ber 8,2009
* * * * * * * *
contracted outor done by B oeing itself atthe new South C arolina site,or elsew here in the
country.
this region.
"T here w illbe no jobs lostas partof this m ove.T here are no plans to take this w ork
aw ay," he said.
NLRB-FOIA-00008809
W ell 1 think you can probably say that aboutall the states in the country rightnow w ith
the econom y being w hat it is.B ut again,the overriding factor w as not the business
clim ate and it w as not the w ages w e're paying people today.It w as that w e can't afford
to have a w ork stoppage every three years.W e can't afford to continue the rate of
A nd m y bias w as to stay here but w e could not get those tw o issues done despite the best
efforts of the U nion and the best efforts of the com pany.
NLRB-FOIA-00008810
B oeing D ispute B ecom es Political Football in South C arolina - N Y T im es.com
Page 1 of 4
ZbeX clu Bork Elm o
R eprints
T h is co p y is fo r yo u r p e rso n a l, n o n co m m e rcia l u se o n ly. Y o u ca n o rd e r p re se n ta tio n -re a d y
co p ie s fo r d istrib u tio n to yo u r co lle a g u e s, clie n ts o r cu sto m e rs h e re o r u se th e "R e p rin ts to o l
tha t appe ars next to any a rticle. V isit w w w .nytreprints.com fo r sa m p le s a n d a d d itio n a l
inform a tion. O rd er a reprin t of th is article no w .
June 30, 2011
B oein g L ab or D isp u te Is M ak in g N ew
F actory a P olitical F ootb all
B y STE V E N G R E E N H O U SE
N O R T H C H A R L E S T O N , S .C . B oeing's gigantic new $750 m illion airplane factory here is the
pride of S outh C arolina, the biggest single investm ent ever m ade in a state that is far m ore
associated w ith old-line textile m ills than state-of-the-art m anufacturing. In just a few w eeks,
1,000 w orkers w ill begin assem bling the first of w hat they hope w ill be hundreds of 787
D ream liners.
T hat is, unless the federal governm ent takes it all aw ay.
In a case that has enraged S outh C arolinians and becom e a cause clbre am ong R epublican
law m akers and presidential hopefuls, the N ational L abor R elations B oard has accused B oeing
of illegally setting up shop in S outh C arolina because of past strikes by the unionized w orkers at
its m ain m anufacturing base in the S eattle area. T he board is asking a judge to order B oeing to
m ove the D ream liner production and the associated jobs to W ashington S tate.
C om panies can generally m ove a plant anyw here they choose, although federal law bars them
from doing so if a m ove involves punishing em ployees for exercising their federally protected
right to unionize or strike. O n several occasions, B oeing executives m entioned past strikes as a
reason for the m ove to S outh C arolina m ost directly, w hen one told the S eattle T im es that the
"overriding factor" in the decision w as "w e can't afford to have a w ork stoppage every three
y ears." ,
T he unusual legal action, filed in A pril at the behest of B oeing's principal union, has grow n into
a political conflagration, fanned by deep resentm ents betw een N orth and S outh, D em ocrats and
R epublicans, union and nonunion w orkers, and fans and foes of B ig G overnm ent.
http://w w w .nytim es.com /2011/07/01/business/O 1boeing.htm l?_r=1& ref todayspaper& page...7/1/2011

NLRB-FOIA-00008811
Page 2 of 4
R epublican presidential candidates have denounced the case as a sym bol of President O bam a's
liberal agenda because he appointed the labor board's top officials.T his w eek,M itt R om ney
called the labor board's case a job killer.N ew t G ingrich has proposed term inating the board's
funding,and T im Paw lenty said the case evokes "the Soviet U nion circa 1970s."
A t a tim e of great econom ic anxiety,the case raises questions about the federal governm ent's
role in prom oting or im peding corporate investm ent and job creation.
-\ Facing so m uch heat,M r.O bam a said on W ednesday that he did not w ant to discuss details of
the case because the N .L .R .B .w as an independent agency.
H ow ever,"as a general proposition,com panies need to have the freedom to relocate," he said.
"W e can't afford to have labor and m anagem ent fighting all the tim e,at a tim e w hen w e're
com peting against G erm any and C hina and other countries that w ant to sell goods all around
the w orld."
B usiness and governm ent leaders in the South argue that the labor board is underm ining
B oeing's com petitive advantage,and they are particularly incensed that officials seem to be
favoring unionized w orkers and plants.
"T his is a huge issue because econom ic developm ent in the South has really been accelerated by
the grow th of nonunion plants," said M erle B lack,a political science professor at E m ory
U niversity."T his case directly threatens the Southern m odel of econom ic developm ent."
For South C arolina,the B oeing plant m eans far m ore than just the thousands of jobs it w ill
create directly and indirectly.B oeing is a m arquee com pany,and state leaders hope its presence
w ill help erase South C arolina's lingering im age as an industrial backw ater.
"B oeing w as a dream com e true for South C arolina," said G ov.N ikki R .H aley in an interview .
"T hey cam e in and brought the hope of the A m erican dream to this state to create real,good-
quality jobs."
c
T hose kinds of jobs are hard to com e by in the C harleston area.
"E verybody I talk to here is excited aboutthis plant," said one w orker,W ayne G ravot.O n a
recent day at the plant,w hich is the size of 12 footballfields,he and five co-w orkers w ere
practicing drilling through carbon fiber a lightw eight com posite m aterial,as hard as m etal,
http://w w w .nytim es.com '20 1 1 /07/01 /business/O lboeing.htm l?_r=1 & ref=todayspaper& page...7/1/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008812
Page 3 of 4
used for m uch of the D ream liner's body.
"It's a good job,a secure job," said M r.G ravot,

45,an A ir Force veteran and father of tw o.N ot
long ago,he w as laid off from a m edical devices com pany and he does not w ant to end up
unem ployed again.
T he outcom e of the case m ay not be certain for years,as it w inds through N .L .R .B .proceedings
and likely court appeals.If B oeing loses,it could be ordered to m ove its three-a-m onth
D ream liner assem bly line from South C arolina to W ashington State.
A s M s.H aley and South C arolina's m em bers of C ongress see it,federal bureaucrats have no
right to snatch aw ay the state's prize or tell a global com pany w here to locate a factory.
L ike m any R epublicans,M s.H aley holds President O bam a responsible."H e didn't just slap
South C arolina,he slapped a great com pany that chose to do business here," she said."T he
president talks about doing som ething to create jobs that's the last thing he's doing here."
B oard officials say that they have never discussed the case w ith the W hite H ouse.
Increasing the sense of disbelief for m any here in South C arolina,the board filed the case just as
the new plant w as nearly com pleted.Production is scheduled to begin in m id-July.
T he case stem s from a com plaint the International A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace
E ngineers filed last year,asserting that B oeing w as illegally retaliating against its m em bers in
W ashington State for exercising their right to strike.T hose w orkers have gone on strike five
tim es since 1977,including a 58 day w alkout in 2008.
C hristopher C orson,the m achinists'general counsel,said,"B oeing broke the law ,and there are
consequences w hen som eone breaks the law ."
B oeing officials deny violating any labor law s,saying that the m ain reason they chose South
C arolina w as to low er production costs.O n T hursday,an adm inistrative law judge in Seattle
denied B oeing's request to dism iss the case.
C onnie K elliher,a spokesw om an for the m achinists,said the union w as not seeking to shut
dow n the South C arolina plant.In its settlem ent negotiations w ith B oeing,the union has
suggested that the com pany keep the plant operating by m oving som e outsourced parts
httn://w w vv.nytim es.com /2011/07/01/business/O lboeing.htm l?_r=l& ref=todayspaper& page..

. 7/1/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008813
Page 4 of 4
production from other countries to South C arolina an idea that B oeing and industry analysts
consider unrealistic.
For the m achinists, the stakes are high. T hey fear that if D ream liner production is allow ed to go
forw ard in South C arolina,then m uch of B oeing's future expansion w ill take place there.
For South C arolina, battered by the closing of textile m ills and furniture factories, the plant is
equally vital.
"T hese things com e along at best once a decade," said D ouglas P.W oodw ard,an econom ics
professor at the U niversity of South C arolina. "It's as big as anything that's happened to South
C arolina since B M W ."
Indeed, B M W opened near Spartanburg in 1994, w ith 1 ,2 0 0 w orkers. Since then, em ploym ent
has expanded to 7,000, and officials say the factory has produced
2 1 ,0 0 0 spinoff jobs.South
C arolinians are hoping for a sim ilar trajectory w ith B oeing.
"If B oeing takes off,South C arolina w ill soar w ith it," Professor W oodw ard said.
http ://w w w .nytim es.com /2011/07/01/busine ss/O lb o eing.htm l?_r=1 & ref=to daysp ap er& p age ...7/1/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008814
S o p h ir, d aym e
F ro m :
Kearney, B arry J.
S e n t:
T uesday, M ay 10, 2011 3:43 P M
T o :
F arrell, E llen; S ophir, Jaym e; S zapiro, M iriam ; W illen, D ebra L
S u b je c t: F W : H arkin R esponds to G O P A ttacks on N onpartisan N ationalLabor R elations B oard
F ro m : A hearn, R ichard L.
S e n t: T uesday, M ay 10, 2011 3:30 PM
T o : Kearney, B arry J.; M attina, C eleste J.
S u b je c t: F W : H arkin R esponds to G O P A ttacks on N onpartisan N ationalLabor R elations B oard
F ro m : H arkin P ress O ffice [m ailto:tom _harkin@ harkin.enew s.senate.gov]
S e n t: T uesday, M ay 10, 2011 2:23 P M
S u b je c t: H arkin R esponds to G O P A ttacks on N onpartisan N ationalLabor R elations B oard
A dd us to your A ddress B ook! A dd tom _harkingharkin.enew s.senate.goy to your address book now to ensure your
new sletter alw ays get delivered.
M ay 10,2011
S e n a to r T o m H a rk in (II-IA ), C h a irm a n
FO R IM M E D IA T E R E L E A SE
M ay 10,2011
U n s u b s c rib e
U p d a te M y P ro file
h ttp ://h e lp .s e n a te .g o v
C ontact: Justine Sessions / K ate C yrul
(202) 224-3254
H arkin R esponds to G O P A ttacks on N onpartisan N ational L abor R elations B oard
W A SH IN G T O N Senate H ealth,E ducation,L abor and Pensions (H E L P) C om m ittee C hairm an T om 1-larkin (D -IA ) today
released the follow ing statem ent responding to the com m ents m ade by R epublican politicians at a press conference today
on the N ational L abor R elations B oard investigation of the B oeing C om pany. O n T hursday,H arkin w ill convene a H E L P
C om m ittee hearing to discuss w hy the m iddle class is increasingly slipping out of reach for A m ericans,at w hich the
G eneral C ounsel for B oeing w ill testify.
"W hat w e are really w itnessing here is another exam ple of the R epublican assault on the m iddle class that has been
echoing across the country for m onths now . Instead of focusing on how w e can get A m ericans w orking again and get the
m iddle class back on its feet,R epublicans have chosen to spend their tim e attacking the handling of a routine unfair labor
practice charge. T his overly dram atic response and the disturbing m isinform ation they are peddling has needlessly
com plicated the legal process and distorted the public discussion of this case.
"T hese opponents of w orkers'rights have also m ischaracterized the fundam ental issue at stake, suggesting that this case
represents an assault on 'right to w ork'law s. T hat's just factually incorrect there is absolutely no w ay that the outcom e
5/10/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008815
of this case could affectin any w ay the law s of any state.
"T his fight is about far m ore than just one group of w orkers in W ashington State.U nions are one of the few voices left in
our society speaking up for the little guy,and if w e let pow erful C E O s tram ple all over these rights w ithout consequences,
w e m ight as w ell give up on having a m iddle class altogether.
"T hat's w hat this all com es dow n to: pow erful corporate interests are pressuring public officials to interfere w ith an
independent agency,rather than let justice run its course.A nd w e should not tolerate this interference.Instead,w e should
turn our attention back to the issues thatreally m atter to A m erican fam ilies how w e can create jobs in W ashington,South
C arolina,Iow a,and across the country"
###
H E L P C o m m itte e W e b s ite
A b o u t C h a irm a n
H arkin
U p d a te M y P ro file - U n s u b s c rib e - P riv a c y P o lic y
5/10/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008816
D E M O C R A T S,SE N A T E G O V
E N E SP#0
tLcit
Latest N
N ew sro o m
M ay 1 1,20 11
R eid : W e M u st K eep In d ep en d en t A gen cies
In d ep en d en t, A llow T h em T o O p erate F reely A n d
W ith ou t P olitical P ressu re
W ashington, D .C . N evada Senator H arry R eid m ade the follow ing rem arks
today regarding the N ational Labor R elations B oard. B elow are his rem arks as
prepared for delivery:
"In a partisan environm ent,there is the tem ptation turn every issue into a political
issue.W e certainly live in one of those environm ents.
"T hat's regrettable, butfar from unfam iliar.Politics play a role in our
representative governm ent,of course,and they alw ays have.T he Founders
created a system of checks and balances three branches of governm ent,for
exam ple,and tw o cham bers of the C ongress precisely because they anticipated
these passions.T hey w anted to keep us from losing our w ay.
"L ong after thatsystem w as created,a new independentfederal agency w as
created in the sam e spiritof checks and balances.T hatagency is the N ational
L abor R elations B oard,and itacts as a check on em ployers and em ployees alike.
Itsafeguards em ployees'rights to unionize or notto unionize,if they so choose.
Itm ediates allegations of unfair labor practices.A nd itdoes all this independent
of any outside influence.
"T he acting general counsel of the N L R B is a m an w ho is as nonpartisan and
independentas the agency he w orks for.L astm onth,he issued a com plaint
againstone of A m erica's largestcom panies, B oeing. T he com plaintalleges that
after B oeing w orkers in som e states w enton strike,the com pany retaliated by
opening a new production line in a non-union facility. T hatkind of retaliation, if
that's w hathappened,is illegal.
ew s.
D em ocrat
,s.
U rge.
bil'C eos TO
A dm itT hey N o L onger N eed
'T axpayer F unded H andouts,
U se M oney T o C utD eficit,
in s te a d ' '
M ustK eep
IndependeritA gencies
Independent-A llow T hem T o .
Q perate:P reelyA nd W ithout
;:polit.icaj P ressure
ti',L
ette :
r, R eid A nd :
'M en en d ei U rg e S en ate
R epublidans T o C osponsor
.,,L e .g islation T O B ring D ow n':
D eficit
B y E nding W asteful
H arielciiitST o B ig O il
C om panies
R eview s A re tri: on B oehner's
D ebtC eiling S peech ., (A nd
T heyA ren1 P retty).
im rnigretion R eform
D oesnT E ncl, W ith S ecuring
T helB order
M ore N ew s...
,S en ate ni:rno crats o n F aceb ook
g j Like
tK
,pm -I EN
T ,P R O T EC TIO N
A FFO PD A U L C L IA R C A C 1
Rectivery
"T hat's justthe background. I'm nothere to judge the m erits of the case. In fact,
I'm here to do the exactopposite: to rem ind the Senate thatprejudging the case is
notour job.T hatw ould overstep long-established boundaries and w eaken our
system of checks and balances.
"L ately,though,som e of our R epublican colleagues have attacked the N L R B and
tried to poison the decision-m aking process.T hey are interfering w ith case
pending before a legal body.
"For exam ple,every R epublican Senator on the H E L P C om m ittee the "L " in
H E L P stands for labor,of course sentthe acting general counsel a letter
I
II
T o d a y -in th e S e n a te
M ay 11,2011:
T he S 4tew ill coriene at 930
.a..rri.'.:Trillow in .g'aby L eader rem ad<S,.
the'Seriate'w ilf,be ,in a period of ._ .
m orning businefor debate onlys...
NLRB-FOIA-00008817
defending B oeing.T he letter itself,sentsix w eeks before a hearing even takes
place,,seem s questionable atbest.B utthese 10 R epublicans w entfurther: they
w entoutof their w ay to link their requestto the acting general counsel's pending
nom ination.Sounds like intim idation to m e.
"T hat's notall.E ightstate attorneys general,all R epublicans,also signed a letter
to the acting generalcounsel,calling on him to w ithdraw the com plaintagainst
B oeing again,long before an adm inistrative judge has the opportunity to review
the case.
"I strongly encourage all of them to take a step back.W e all know R epublicans
dislike organized labor.W e know they disdain unions because unions dem and
fairness and equality from the big businesses R epublicans so often shield atall
costs.
"A nd let's be honest: R epublicans are threatened by unions.T hey're threatened
because w hen a large,organized group is so concerned w ith w orkers'rights,the
m em bers of thatgroup vote in large num bers.A nd because R epublicans and the
big businesses they defend so often try to take aw ay w orkers'rights,w orkers
don'toften vote R epublican.
"B utthis kind of interference is inappropriate.Itis disgraceful and dangerous.
W e w ouldn'tallow threats to prosecutors or U .S.A ttorneys,trying to stop them
from m oving forw ard w ith charges they see fitto bring to the courts.A nclw e
shouldn'tstand for this.Itm ay notbe illegal,butit's no better than the retaliation
and intim idation thatis the fundam ental question in this case.Itshould stop.
"W e need agencies like the N L R B to be able to operate freely and w ithout
political pressures.W e need to keep our independentagencies independent.T his
case is for them to decide,notus."
w ithS enator_siperm ittep ..,to,speak
therein for up IP 10 m inutes each
w ith the firsthour equally divided
and controlled:kietw eenthe tw o
Leaders or tii6ieclesiprieeS :.W ittvilie
R epublicans controlling the first30
m inutes and the M ajority controlling
the next36 m inutes
A t2:00 p.m ; the S enate w ill
consider3the nom ination of A renda
:W rightA lleruto be a :D istrictJudge
for the E astern ciisopf O f V irginia
w ith one hour of debate equally
''.,;divided and controlled betw een
S enators L eahy and G rassley or
,th eir"d esig n ees. U p o n th e u se o r
"yielding back of tim e (at
approxim ately 3:00 p.m .), the
e w ill conducta roll,call vote
:, , S enat
on cbrifirm ation O f the A llen
nom ination.
S en ate F lo o r C alen d ar..
S enate Jobs
T o learn m ore about career
opportunities atthe U nited S ta te s
S erfate; please viS itthe follow ing
U S S en ate V irtu al R eferen ce
D esk::E m p lo y m en t
S en ate?lacern en t O ffiC e.an d : ,
E m p lo y m en t,B u lletin
:
S eriateK E m ploym entB ulletin (pdf)
P lace y o u r re s u m e in th e
D em o cratic R esu rn e B an k
B ack to P ress R eleases
NLRB-FOIA-00008818
B o e in g 's la b o u r p ro b le m s
M o v in g fa c to rie s to fle e u n io n s
A p r 2 5 th 2 0 1 1 , 1 4 :1 6 b y M .S .
B O E IN G d e cid e d a fe w ye a rs a g o to b u ild its 7 8 7 D re a m lin e r in S o u th C a ro lin a , th e

W a ll S tre e t
Jo u rn a l opines, b e c a u se it w a s a fra id its u n io n in W a sh in g to n w a s to o stro n g . S o u th C a ro lin a is a .
"rig h t-to -w o rk " s ta te : T itle 4 1 , C h a p te r 7 o f th e s ta te c o d e m a k e s it ille g a l fo r c o m p a n ie s a n d
u n io n s to s ig n a c o n tra c t in w h ic h a n y o n e w h o w o rk s a t th e c o m p a n y h a s to jo in th e u n io n . T h a t
m a k e s it e x tre m e ly d iffic u lt to o rg a n is e e ffe c tiv e u n io n s , a n d B o e in g h o p e d it w o u ld n 't h a v e a s
m a n y s trik e s a t a p la n t in S o u th C a ro lin a a s it h a d e x p e rie n c e d a t its p la n ts in S e a ttle in re c e n t
ye a rs. T h e u n io n s su e d o ve r th e m o ve , a n d th e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd h a s n o w a w a rd e d
th e m a p re lim in a ry o rd e r b lo c k in g th e fa c to ry fro m o p e ra tin g p e n d in g a n in v e s tig a tio n in to
w h e th e r th e c o m p a n y 's s h ift o f p ro d u c tio n to a u n io n -h o s tile s ta te in o rd e r to a v o id u n io n a c tiv ity
c o n s titu te d "a n ti-u n io n a n im u s ".
T o la y th e g ro u n d w o rk h e re , it's im p o rta n t to u n d e rs ta n d w h a t "rig h t-to -w o rk " m e a n s . It d o e s n 't
m e a n "th e g o v e rn m e n t s ta y s o u t o f th e la b o u r n e g o tia tio n s b u s in e s s ". R ig h t-to -w o rk la w s
sp e cifica lly b a n e m p lo ye rs a n d u n io n s fro m sig n in g co n tra cts stip u la tin g th a t a n yo n e w h o w o rks
a t th e c o m p a n y h a s to jo in th e u n io n . T h a t's a b a s ic s te p th a t u n io n s a lw a y s try to n e g o tia te fo r,
s in c e w ith o u t it th e y fin d it v e ry h a rd to e s ta b lis h th e m s e lv e s a s th e n e g o tia tin g p a rtn e r w ith
m a n a g e m e n t.
A n yw a y, h e re 's th e se n te n ce I fo u n d m o st a m u sin g in th e W S J's e d ito ria l: "B o e in g m a n a g e m e n t
d id w h a t it ju d g e d to b e b e st fo r its sh a re h o ld e rs a n d cu sto m e rs a n d lo o ke d e lse w h e re ." B o e in g 's
m o tiv a tio n fo r s h iftin g p ro d u c tio n to a n a n ti-u n io n s ta te w a s n o t to b e n e fit c u s to m e rs . If B o e in g
fe lt it c o u ld ra is e p ric e s fo r th e a irp la n e s it b u ild s w ith o u t lo s in g m a rk e t s h a re , it w o u ld d o s o in a
s e c o n d , re g a rd le s s o f w h e th e r th a t w a s "b e s t fo r its c u s to m e rs ". C o m p a n ie s try to lo w e r
o p e ra tin g c o s ts in o rd e r to ra is e p ro fits o r c u t p ric e s a n d w in m a rk e t s h a re , n o t o u t o f a s e lfle s s
d e sire to b e n e fit cu sto m e rs.
B u t th e m o re im p o rta n t fla w h e re is th a t th e re a s o n w h y B o e in g m ig h t h a v e ju d g e d its d e c is io n to
m o v e p ro d u c tio n to S o u th C a ro lin a "b e s t fo r its s h a re h o ld e rs " w a s th a t it d id n 't th in k it v io la te d
la b o u r la w to fle e y o u r u n io n . If it d id v io la te la b o u r la w , th e n B o e in g m a d e a b a d d e c is io n a n d
d e live re d n e g a tive va lu e to its sh a re h o ld e rs. T o p u t th in g s a n o th e r w a y, if A m e rica h a d la b o u r
la w s th a t w e re u n ifo rm fro m s ta te to s ta te lik e a n y o th e r n o rm a l e c o n o m ic p o W e r, ra th e r th a n a
ra c e -to -th e -b o tto m s y s te m w h e re s ta te s a re p re s s u re d to w e a k e n la b o u r la w s in o rd e r to e n tic e
e m p lo ye rs, th e n th e re w o u ld h a ve b e e n n o re a so n fo r B o e in g to m o ve p ro d u ctio n . T h e re is sim p ly
n o m o ra l co n te n t to B o e in g 's d e cisio n to m o ve p ro d u ctio n to S o u th C a ro lin a . B o e in g d o e sn 't g e t
b ro w n ie p o in ts fo r e n g a g in g in re g u la to ry a rb itra g e a n d s tiffin g its u n io n s ju s t b e ca u s e it ju d g e d
th a t m o v e to b e b e s t fo r s h a re h o ld e rs . C o n g ra tu la tin g B o e in g fo r try in g to d e liv e r s h a re h o ld e r
NLRB-FOIA-00008819
va lu e is like co n g ra tu la tin g it fo r b u ild in g a n d se llin g a irp la n e s. T h a t's sim p ly w h a t th e co m p a n y
d o e s. B o e in g 's d e cisio n w a s a ju d g m e n t a b o u t h o w to p la y, g ive n its e va lu a tio n o f th e ru le s o f th e
g a m e . T h e q u e stio n o f w h e th e r co m p a n ie s sh o u ld b e a llo w e d to fle e th e ir u n io n s is a q u e stio n
a b o u t w h a t th e ru le s o f th e g a m e o u g h t to b e , in o rd e r to d e live r va lu e to th e e co n o m y a n d to
so cie ty.
S o , sh o u ld co m p a n ie s b e b a rre d fro m m o vin g p ro d u ctio n to a rig h t-to -w o rk sta te to fle e th e ir
u n io n s? N ikla s B la n ch a rd th in ks n o t. H e ca lls it "p ro te ctio n ism ".
W h ile I d o n 't b e g ru d g e th e rig h t fo r u n io n s to fo rm a n d a tte m p t to b a rg a in , I a lso d o n 't b e g ru d g e
th e rig h t o f m a n a g e m e n t th e sa y, "F U , w e 're g o in g so m e w h e re e lse ". In a n id e a l w o rld , th e y w o u ld
d o th is fre e o f g o ve rn m e n t p la yin g fo r e ith e r sid e . B u t in th is ca se , w e h a ve th e g o ve rn m e n t
co n te m p la tin g re strictin g ca p ita l flo w s b e tw e e n sta te s! T h e U n ite d S ta te s, a s u n d e rsto o d p ro p e rly, is
th e la rg e st fre e tra d e a re a in th e w o rld . T h a t h a s b e e n a h u g e co m p a ra tive a d va n ta g e fo r th e U S
h isto rica lly, a n d a rg u a b ly th e re a so n th a t w e a re a t th e to p o f th e w o rld e co n o m ic p yra m id to d a y.
R e strictin g th e flo w o f ca p ita l m a ke s u s p o o re r b y re d u cin g p ro d u ctive e m p lo ym e n t, a n d in cre a sin g
p rice s. It's a ve ry p o o r p re ce d e n t to se t:
I th in k th is is a co n fu sin g a n a lo g y. M r B la n ch a rd m a y b e rig h t th a t, g ive n th a t la b o u r a n d o th e r
b u sin e ss la w s d iffe r fro m sta te to sta te , th e U n ite d S ta te s m ig h t b e st b e u n d e rsto o d a s th e
w o rld 's la rg e st fre e tra d e a re a , ra th e r th a n a sin g le co u n try. B u t d o e s a n yo n e th in k th a t th e
U n ite d S ta te s w o u ld b e a d ra m a tica lly le ss p ro sp e ro u s co u n try if it h a d u n ifo rm la b o u r a n d
b u sin e ss la w th ro u g h o u t its te rrito ry? H a ve rig h t-to -w o rk la w s in 2 2 sta te s m a d e su ch a n
im m e n se co n trib u tio n to A m e rica n p ro sp e rity th a t w ith o u t th e m A m e rica w o u ld n o t b e th e w o rld 's
la rg e st a n d w e a lth ie st e co n o m y? R e a lly? S e rio u sly? W o u ld A m e rica n te ch n o lo g ica l in g e n u ity h a ve
b e e n crip p le d if th e w h o le co u n try h a d to fo llo w th e la b o u r la w s th a t o b ta in in S ilico n V a lle y?
I d o n 't th in k so . I th in k if th e re w e re n o rig h ts-to -w o rk sta te s, A m e rica n G D P w o u ld n 't b e
sig n ifica n tly d iffe re n t th a n it is to d a y. A n d if A m e rica d id h a ve u n ifo rm la b o u r la w s, th e n B o e in g 's
d e cisio n a s to w h e th e r to p ro d u ce in P u g e t S o u n d o r S o u th C a ro lin a w o u ld h a ve n o th in g
w h a tso e ve r to d o w ith u n io n s. If la b o u r la w s in S o u th C a ro lin a a n d W a sh in g to n w e re e q u iva le n t,
th e o n ly th in g th e w o rke rs in P u g e t S o u n d w o u ld h a ve to w o rry a b o u t is w h e th e r th e ir d e m a n d s
w o u ld le a d th e co m p a n y to lo se m a rke t sh a re o r to m o ve p ro d u ctio n o ve rse a s. T h e first m ig h t b e
a re a l w o rry; th e la tte r is a m a rg in a l issu e fo r B o e in g w o rke rs b e ca u se th e co m p a n y is a d e fe n ce
in d u stry-su p p o rte d n a tio n a l ch a m p io n firm .
N o w m a yb e u n io n ise d B o e in g w o rke rs sh o u ld b e m o re w o rrie d a b o u t h u rtin g th e co m p a n y's
m a rke t sh a re a s it co m p e te s w ith E A D S a n d w ith re g io n a l-je t b u ild e rs like E m b ra e r a n d
B o m b a rd ie r. It ce rta in ly so u n d s like th e co m p a n y h a s a strike p ro b le m . B u t E A D S 's la b o u r fo rce is
h a rd ly n o n -u n io n ise d . If B o e in g is h a vin g m o re tro u b le w ith its u n io n s th a n its co m p e tito rs a re ,
it's p o ssib le th a t th e fa u lt lie s w ith th e co m p a n y, ra th e r th a n w ith th e u n io n s. W h a t's h a p p e n in g
h e re is th a t a n ti-la b o u r la w s in ce rta in sta te s a llo w co m p a n ie s to sh ift in ve stm e n t to th o se sta te s
in o rd e r to g e t a ro u n d th e ir u n io n s. A n d e ffo rts b y u n io n s to b lo ck th a t m a n o e u vre ca n th e n b e
co n d e m n e d a s "re strictio n s o n ca p ita l flo w ". T h e issu e isn 't fre e d o m o f ca p ita l. T h e issu e is
w h e th e r e m p lo ye rs ca n u se a th re a t to m o ve p ro d u ctio n to a u n io n -h o stile sta te a s a n e g o tia tin g
ta ctic in co lle ctive b a rg a in in g .
reddit
R e la te d ite m s
NLRB-FOIA-00008820
T O P IC : S o u th C a ro lin a > >
T O P IC : B o ein g > >
T ra p e : B o e in g , B o e in g , g o n e
T h e sp a ce sh u ttle : T h e
D iffe re n ce E n g in e : H o u sto n , w e
h a ve a p ro b le m ...
T h e 2 0 1 2 p rim a rie s: T h ru ste rs
v la g g a rd s
A ircra ft fa tig u e : E xa m in in g
M isu se o f w o rd s: L ite ra lly g o in g
S o u th w e st's fu se la g e ru p tu re
o n fo r d e ca d e s
A ircra ft fa tig u e : T h e D iffe re n ce
E n g in e : O ld b e fo re th e ir tim e
T O P IC : U n ite d S ta te s > >
T O P IC : C rim e a n d la w > >
F a irn e ss a s m e rito cra cy: W h a t
is fa ir?
T S A se cu rity p ro ce d u re s: A
g o o d re a so n to a vo id
co m p la in in g a b o u t a irp o rt
se cu rity
Ja p a n 's e n e rg y crisis: P o w e rfu l
sa vin g s
T h e Q & A : D in a w M e n g e stu ,
n o ve list
M o re re la te d to p ic s : L a b o u r la w
CO
C rim e a n d p u n ish m e n t: A
re viva l o f flo g g in g ?
T h e w e e k a h e a d : T w e n ty-five
ye a rs o n
Law
h e e rv
\\
'& \\
NLRB-FOIA-00008821
B oein g sh ou ld n 't b lam e N L R B for d oin g its job
The N ational L abor R elations B oard w as m erely doing its job w hen it charged B oeing w ith m aking an illegal transfer of w ork to South C arolina for
a second 787 production line,w rites guest colum nist Jeff Johnson,president of the W ashington State L abor C ouncil.
Jeff Johnson
TH E N ational L abor R elations B oard com plaint against B oeing has caused quite a stir.
A ccording to the N L R B charge, B oeing chose to set up its second 787 production line in
N orth C harleston, S .C ., in retaliation against the M achinists'U nion because of repeated
strikes against the com pany and the possibility the union could go on strike again.
?` T o p co m m en ts
O n A pril 24, The Seattle Tim es editorialized against the N L R B action ["Feds shouldn't
reverse B oeing's S.C . decision'] claim ing both the union and the com pany are grow n-
ups and both know their rights. A ccording to The Tim es, the union has a right to strike
and the com pany has the right to build production facilities anyw here it w ants w ithin
the confines of the law .
H ide / Show cO m m ents ,,
t( Jeff Johns.O
n is entitled to express his opinion
on these pages, but his position as (M ay 9, 2011,
by B ealC at) R
e a d
o r e
The unions create a set of econom ic conditions
that reffder al:O ther...location m ore....O jay.9,
bY baptairi w iro) Read m ai'e":'
'
B oth sides do have rights, but only one side, B oeing, violated the law . B oeing com m itted
an unfair labor practice not by putting its factory in South C arolina, a right-to-w ork
state; it broke the law w hen it m ade it clear to em ployees it w as relocating because of
strikes. This action created a chilling effect on its em ployees as w ell as the state of
W ashington.
e4 have to SA ,siiice W lih iglinilding a plant
:som ew here else illegal for any reason? ..."(M ay 9,
2 0 1 1 , by eii'dw rebth)R ead m are:
Posta com m ent,>
The W ashington State L abor C ouncil, A FL -C IO applauds the N L R B general counsel's
decision. The N L R B is sim ply doing its job, defending the rights of w orkers to
collectively bargain and to act in concerted activity. W ere B oeing's actions to go unchecked, com panies w ould be free to coerce and
intim idate w orkers, their unions and states into deals that prim arily profit the com pany. This w ould m ake a m ockery of the fundam ental
h u m an rig h t o f w o rk ers to stan d to g eth er in o rd er to b alan ce o u t th e p o w er o f co rp o ratio n s.
Y et instead of sim ply having its day in court, B oeing is trying to use its trem endous political clout to stop the actions of this independent
federal law -enforcem ent agency. It is trying to w in politically because it cannot w in its case in a court.
The W ashington State L abor C ouncil, A FL -C IO , L A M , SPE E A and the m any other unions that represent w orkers at B oeing w ant the
com pany to expand production in W ashington state. W e w ant to design and produce the 787 and the next generation of 737s here. W e have
the m ost skilled m achinists and engineers, the best aerospace apprenticeship program and a great public infrastructure to support the
aerospace industry. B ut w e w ant the com pany to treat its w orkers and the state fairly and to obey the law .
D uring the past to years w e have dem onstrated w hat w e can accom plish w hen w e w ork together. O rganized labor has w orked w ith our
congressional delegation, B oeing and others to w in the A ir Force tanker deal. The recent tanker announcem ent is recognition of the
com m itm ent our state, our w orkers and our unions have m ade to B oeing and the aerospace industry. W hat w e expect from the com pany is a
com m itm ent to locate design and production w ork in W ashington state. W e expect B oeing to stop the coercive w ork and political threats
that continue to harm our state's econom ic security.
The N ational L abor R elations B oard issued the com plaint against B oeing after a careful investigation, providing B oeing w ith every
opportunity to defend itself. It even granted B oeing's num erous requests for delay. In the end, the B oard decided it w as com pelled to act in
the face of B oeing's adm ission that its m ove w as m otivated by its desire to avoid law ful collective bargaining.
B oeing claim s that no current em ployees in the Puget Sound have been harm ed by m oving w ork to the second line and that em ploym ent in
W ashington state has increased. The truth is, every job on the unlaw ful second line in S outh C arolina displaces good m iddle-class, union
jobs in W ashington, and our com m unities and the state lose desperately needed revenue and econom ic activity.
B oeing adm itted to retaliating against the union and in so doing m ade an illegal transfer of w ork. R ather than blam ing the N L R B for doing
NLRB-FOIA-00008822
its job,w e should all be asking w hy B oeing proceeded so recklessly w ith so m uch at stake.B oeing,grow up and face your responsibilities.
Jeff Jo4nson is president of the W ashington State Labor C ouncil.
A titim itta id g
nw jot
FIN D TH EJO B YO U
DESERVE.
B eer sam p lin g an d p in ts fo r tw o fo r $ 8 at
B ig A l B rew ing (53% off)
NLRB-FOIA-00008823
In th is S e c tio n
H o m e B o e in g C o m p la in t F a c t S h e e t
BO Lettv C om plaint P act Sheer
H om e
R ig h ts W e P ro te ct
O n A p ril 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 , th e A c tin g g e n e ra l C o u n s e l o f th e N a tio n a i i4 a ta -R e la tio n s b o a rd iS stie d .0 co rn p ia in (
a g a in s t th e B o e in g C o m p a n y a lle g in g th a t it v io la te d fe d e ra l la b o r la w b y d e c id in g to tra n s fe ta s e c o n d
a is p la n e p rw 4 c tio n lin e fro m
a u n io n 1 H c ility in h e ll u 1 lIlL 1 flt to fn o ility
in
S C H ,01
W hatW e D o
C a se s & D e cisio n s
W h o W e A re
a d m in is tra tiv e la w ju d g e .
C lic k h e re to s e e a n e w s re le a s e a b o u t th e c o m p la in t, a n d h e re to s e e a c o p y o f th e fu ll c o m p la in t. .
N e w s & M e d ia
P u b lica tio n s
V ie w a ctin g G e n e ra l C o u n se l L a fe S o lo m o n 's M a y 9 sta te m e n t.
P u b lic ly a v a ila b le d o c u m e n ts re la te d to th e B o e in g c a s e a re a v a ila b le h e re .
R e s o u rc e s
T h e C h a rg e a n d C o m p la in t
T h e N L R B P ro ce ss
O n M a rc h 2 6 , 2 0 1 0 , th e In te rn a tio n a l A s s o c ia tio n o f M a c h in is ts a n d A e ro s p a c e W o rk e rs , D is tric t L o d g e 7 5 1 ,
M yN LR B
file d a c h a rg e w ith th e N L R B a lle g in g th a t th e B o e in g C o m p a n y h a d e n g a g e d in m u ltip le u n fa ir la b o r
p ra c tic e s re la te d to its d e c is io n to p la c e a s e c o n d p ro d u c tio n lin e fo r th e 7 8 7 D re a m lin e r a irp la n e in a n o n -
F ind a C ase
u n io n fa c ility .
F ile C a se D o cu m e n ts
S p e c ific a lly , th e u n io n c h a rg e d th a t th e d e c is io n to tra n s fe r th e lin e w a s m a d e to re ta lia te a g a in s t u n io n
e m p lo y e e s fo r p a rtic ip a tin g in p a s t s trik e s a n d to c h ill fu tu re s trik e a c tiv ity , w h ic h is p ro te c te d u n d e r th e
G ra p h s & D a ta
N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s A ct.
T h e u n io n a ls o c h a rg e d th a t th e c o m p a n y v io la te d th e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s A c t b y fa ilin g to n e g o tia te
o v e r th e d e c is io n to tra n s fe r th e p ro d u c tio n lin e . T h e M a c h in is ts ' u n io n h a s re p re s e n te d B o e in g C o m p a n y
e m p lo y e e s in th e P u g e t S o u n d a re a o f W a s h in g to n , w h e re th e p la n e s a re a s s e m b le d , s in c e 1 9 3 6 , a n d in
P o rtla n d , O re g o n , w h e re s o m e a irp la n e p a rts a re m a d e , s in c e 1 9 7 5 .
F in d Y o u r R e g io n a l O ffice
F A Q s
F o rm s
N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s A ct (N L R A )
R e la te d A g e n cie s
T h ro u g h o u t th e in v e s tig a tio n o f th e c h a rg e , N L R B o ffic ia ls m e t w ith b o th p a rtie s in e ffo rts to fa c ilita te a
s e ttle m e n t a g re e m e n t. T h e o v e rw h e lm in g m a jo rity o f N L R B c h a rg e s fo u n d to h a v e m e rit a re s e ttle d b y
a g re e m e n t. A lth o u g h n o s e ttle m e n t w a s re a c h e d a n d th e A g e n c y w a s c o m p e lle d to p u rs u e litig a tio n , th e
A c tin g G e n e ra l C o u n s e l re m a in s o p e n to a re s o lu tio n b e tw e e n th e p a rtie s .
T h e c o m p la in t is s u e d b y th e A c tin g G e n e ra l C o u n s e l (1 9 -C A -3 2 4 3 1 ) a lle g e s th a t B o e in g v io la te d tw o
s e c tio n s o f th e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s A c t b y m a k in g c o e rc iv e s ta te m e n ts a n d th re a ts to e m p lo y e e s fo r
e n g a g in g in s ta tu to rily p ro te c te d a c tiv itie s , a n d b y d e c id in g to p la c e th e s e c o n d lin e a t a n o n -u n io n fa c ility ,
a n d e s ta b lis h a p a rts s u p p ly p ro g ra m n e a rb y , in re ta lia tio n fo r p a s t s trik e a c tiv ity a n d to c h ill fu tu re s trik e
a c tiv ity b y its u n io n e m p lo ye e s.
T h e in v e s tig a tio n fo u n d th a t B o e in g o ffic ia ls c o m m u n ic a te d th e u n la w fu l m o tiv a tio n in m u ltip le s ta te m e n ts
to e m p lo y e e s a n d th e m e d ia . F o r e x a m p le , a s e n io r B o e in g o ffic ia l
sa id in a v id e o ta p e d in te rv ie w w ith th e
S e a ttle T im e s n e w sp a p e r: " T h e o v e rrid in g fa c to r (in tra n sfe rrin g th e lin e ) w a s n o t th e b u sin e ss c lim a te .
A n d it w a s n o t th e w a g e s w e 're p a y in g to d a y . It w a s th a t w e c a n n o t a ffo rd to h a v e a w o rk sto p p a g e ,

yo u
k n o w , e v e ry th re e ye a rs ."
T h e c o m p la in t a lso a lle g e s th a t B o e in g 's a c tio n s w e re " in h e re n tly d e stru c tiv e o f th e rig h ts g u a ra n te e d
e m p lo y e e s b y S e c tio n 7 o f th e A c t."
T h e in v e s tig a tio n d id n o t fin d m e rit to th e u n io n 's c h a rg e th a t B o e in g fa ile d to b a rg a in in g o o d fa ith o v e r its
d e cisio n re g a rd in g th e se co n d lin e . A lth o u g h a d e c isio n to lo c a te u n it w o rk w o u ld ty p ic a lly b e a m a n d a to ry
s u b je c t o f b a rg a in in g , in th is c a s e , th e u n io n h a d w a iv e d its rig h t to b a rg a in o n th e is s u e in its c o lle c tiv e
b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t w ith B o e in g .
T h e L a w a n d S u p p o rtin g C a s e s
T h e N L R B e n fo rce s th e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s A ct, w h ich g u a ra n te e s e m p lo ye e s th e rig h t to o rg a n ize a n d
c o lle c tiv e ly b a rg a in , o r to re fra in fro m d o in g s o . A p p lic a b le S e c tio n s o f th e A c t fo llo w :
R IG H T S O F E M P LO Y E E S
S e c tio n 7 : E m p lo y e e s s h a ll h a v e th e rig h t to s e lf-o rg a n iz a tio n , to fo rm , jo in , o r a s s is t la b o r o rg a n iz a tio n s ,
to b a rg a in c o lle c tiv e ly th ro u g h re p re s e n ta tiv e s o f th e ir o w n c h o o s in g , a n d to e n g a g e in o th e r c o n c e rte d
NLRB-FOIA-00008824
a ctivitie s fo r th e p u rp o se o f co lle ctive : b rg w riin g o t o th e r m u tu a l a id o r p ro te ctio n

and shail also hi.
veA he:
rig h t to re fiira in fro m a n y o r a ll su cli a L tivitie s .
R IG H T T O S T R IK E
N othing In this A ct S hairlaire'construeck so as e ith e r to in te rfe re w ith .i0 E fr-riP e ci% p r d im in ish
a n y w a y th e rig h t to strike o r to a ffe ct the lim itatio n s o r q u a lifica tio n s o n th a t rig h t;
S e ctio n 8 (a )It sh a ll b e a n u n fa ir la b o r p ra ctice fo r a n e m p lo ye r
(1 ) to in te rfe re w ith , re stra in , o r co e rce e m p lo ye e s in th e e xe rcise o f th e rig h ts g u a ra n te e d in se ctio n 7 ;
(3 ) b y d iscrim in a tio n in re g a rd to h ire o r te n u re o f e m p lo ym e n t o r a n y te rm o r co n d itio n o f e m p lo ym e n t to
e n co u ra g e o r d isco u ra g e m e m b e rsh ip in a n y la b o r o rg a n iza tio n
C a s e s :
O n th e 8 (a )(1 ) ch a rg e :
T h e U .S . S u p re m e C o u rt d e lin e a te d th e lin e b e tw e e n p ro te cte d e m p lo ye r sp e e ch ve rsu s u n la w fu l e m p lo ye r
sp e e ch u n d e r th e N L R A in N L R B v. G isse l P a ckin g C o rp ., 3 9 5 U S 5 7 5 , 6 1 8 (1 9 6 9 ).
In G e n e ra l E le ctric C o m p a n y, 2 1 5 N L R B 5 2 0 (1 9 7 4 ), th e N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd a p p lie d th e G isse l
te st to se t a sid e a n e le ctio n b e ca u se th e e m p lo ye r, citin g co n ce rn s a b o u t p o ssib le fu tu re strike s, sta te d th a t
th e p la n t's n o n u n io n sta tu s w a s a p rim a ry fa cto r in ch o o sin g to lo ca te a p ro d u ctio n lin e fo r a n e w m o to r
th e re . In its d e cisio n , th e B o a rd d istin g u ish e d a n e m p lo ye r's rig h t to ta ke d e fe n sive a ctio n w h e n th re a te n e d
w ith a n im m in e n t strike fro m th re a ts to tra n sfe r w o rk "m e re ly b e ca u se o f th e p o ssib ility o f a strike a t so m e
sp e cu la tive fu tu re d a te ."
S in ce th e n , th e B o a rd h a s re p e a te d ly h e ld th a t a n e m p lo ye r vio la te s se ctio n 8 (a )(1 ) b y th re a te n in g th a t
e m p lo ye e s w ill lo se th e ir jo b s if th e y jo in a strike , o r b y p re d ictin g a lo ss o f b u sin e ss a n d jo b s b e ca u se o f
u n io n iza tio n o r strike d isru p tio n s w ith o u t a n y fa ctu a l b a sis. In co n tra st, th e B o a rd h a s fo u n d th a t e m p lo ye rs
m a y la w fu lly re la te co n ce rn s ra ise d b y cu sto m e rs (C u rw o o d , In c., 339 N LR B 1137 (2 0 0 3 ). T h e y m a y a lso
re fe re n ce th e p o ssib ility th a t u n io n iza tio n , in clu d in g strike s, m ig h t h a rm re la tio n sh ip s w ith co n su m e rs, a s
o p p o se d to p re d ictin g "u n a vo id a b le co n se q u e n ce s."M ille r In d u strie s T o w in g E q u ip m e n t, In c., 3 4 2 N L R B
1 0 7 4 , 1 0 7 5 -7 6 (2 0 0 4 )
O n th e 8 (a )(3 ) ch a rg e :
A n e m p lo ye r's d isco u ra g e m e n t o f its e m p lo ye e s' p a rticip a tio n in a le g itim a te strike co n stitu te s
d isco u ra g e m e n t o f u n io n m e m b e rsh ip w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th is se ctio n . T h is a p p lie s to e m p lo ye r co n d u ct
d e sig n e d to re ta lia te a g a in st e m p lo ye e s fo r h a vin g e n g a g e d in a strike in th e p a st (C a p e h o rn In d u stry,_ 3 3 6
N L R B 3 6 4 (2 0 0 1 )w h e re th e e m p lo ye r fa ile d to re in sta te strike rs w h e n th e re w a s n o le g itim a te b u sin e ss
ju stifica tio n fo r p e rm a n e n tly su b co n tra ctin g th e w o rk), a s w e ll a s e m p lo ye r co n d u ct d e sig n e d to fo re sta ll
e m p lo ye e s fro m e xe rcisin g th e ir rig h t to strike in th e fu tu re (C e n tu ry A ir F re ig h t, 2 8 4 N L R B

7 3 0 (1 9 8 7 )
w h e re e m p lo ye r p e rm a n e n tly su b co n tra cte d u n it w o rk a n d d isch a rg e d e m p lo ye e s in o rd e r to fo re sta ll th e
e xe rcise o f th e ir rig h t to strike ; a n d W e stp a c E le ctric, 3 2 1 N L R B 1 3 2 2 (1 9 9 6 1 , w h e re e m p lo ye r iso la te d
e m p lo ye e in re ta lia tio n fo r p re vio u s a n d a n ticip a te d fu tu re strike a ctivitie s). In N a tio n a l F a b rica to rs 2 9 5
N L R B 1 0 9 5 (1 9 8 9 ), w h e re p o te n tia l strike rs w e re ta rg e te d fo r la yo ffs, th e B o a rd h e ld th a t "d isfa vo rin g
e m p lo ye e s w h o w e re like ly to strike , is th e kin d o f co e rcive d iscrim in a tio n th a t...d isco u ra g e s...p ro te cte d
a c tiv ity ."
N e x t S te p s
It is im p o rta n t to n o te th a t th e co m p la in t sta te s a lle g a tio n s b y th e A ctin g G e n e ra l C o u n se l th a t
th e e m p lo ye r h a s co m m itte d u n fa ir la b o r p ra ctice s. T h e B o a rd h a s m a d e n o fin d in g s o n th e se a lle g a tio n s.
T h e n e xt ste p in th e p ro ce ss w ill b e a h e a rin g b e fo re a n N L R B a d m in istra tive la w ju d g e , sch e d u le d fo r Ju n e
1 4 a t th e N L R B 's S e a ttle o ffice . A t th e h e a rin g , b o th p a rtie s w ill h a ve a n o p p o rtu n ity to p re se n t e vid e n ce
a n d a rg u e in fa vo r o f th e ir p o sitio n . T h e d e cisio n o f th e ju d g e m a y b e a p p e a le d to th e B o a rd in W a sh in g to n
b y th e filin g o f e xce p tio n s b y e ith e r p a rty. T h e B o a rd 's d e cisio n co u ld fu rth e r b e a p p e a le d to a fe d e ra l co u rt
o f a p p e a ls a n d th e n to th e U . S . S u p re m e C o u rt. C lick h e re fo r a flo w ch a rt o f th e N L R B p ro ce ss.
T h is fa ct sh e e t w a s p o ste d o n 4 /2 0 /2 0 1 1 a n d w ill b e u p d a te d p e rio d ica lly.
P rin te r-frie n d ly ve rsio n
NLRB-FOIA-00008825
A p p ro p ria tio n s C o m m ittee
D enny 'R ehberg
L ab or. H ealth an d H u m an
S ervices. an d E ducation
gtatc of M ontana
C ongrecifioftbe tiniteb State5
C h a irm a n
E n ergy an d W ater D evelop m en t
L egislative B ran ch
owe ofReprelientatibecs
June 6,2011
M r.L afe E .Solom on
Acting G eneralC ounsel
1099 14thStreet,N .W .
D ear M r.Solom on:
As C hairm an ofthe L abor,-H ealth and H um an Services,E ducation and R elated Agencies
Appropriations Subcom m ittee,I take m y oversight responsibilities very seriously.And w hile that
m ost often involves m atters of a fiscalnature,it is also m y role to vigorously address any
im propriety and to preventany abuse of authority or policy overreach from occurring w ithin any
agency under the jurisdiction ofthis subcom m ittee.
I am w riting regarding the N ationalL abor R elations B oard's ("N L R B ")actions in response to a
decision by T he B oeing C om pany ("B oeing") to locate its new 787 D ream liner m anufacturing
facility in C harleston,South C arolina.In m aking this decision,B oeing sought to achieve
econom ic com petitiveness for its globalcustom er base,create jobs and an econom ic boom to a
state thathas nearly 10% unem ploym ent,and m aintain its status as a w orld leader in the
aerospace industry.B oeing has a strong record of providing good-paying jobs for Am erican
w orkers,including in m y hom e-state of M ontana,and for helping keep Am erica safe.T his is
exactly the type of private enterprise expansion our econom y needs to drive itself through a still-
sluggish recovery.
I believe the N L R B 's decision to issue a com plaint against B oeing in this m atter represents a
com plete breach of the Federalgovernm ent's role in regulating private industry and thatthe
rem edy cited therein is extraordinary and unprecedented.T he rem edy provided for in this
com plaint w ould require B oeing to m ove the second m anufacturing line to the state of
W ashington.Itis m ore than troubling to m e thatany agentof the Federalgovernm entw ould
have the audacity to seek to overturn legitim ate,core business decisions of a private enterprise.
Should you succeed in this com plaint,not only w ould B oeing have to abandon the over $1
billion it has currently spent on this facility over the last 17 m onths,it w ould also surely need to
spend considerably m ore to build new capacity in W ashington.T he lost investm ent and delay in
tim e w ould significantly im pair the com pany's ability to m eet custom er dem ands and
com m itm ents for existing orders.
2448 R ayb u rn H ou se O ffice B u ild in g
W ash in gton . D C 20515
(202) 225-3211
1201 G ran d A ven u e, S u ite 1
B illin gs, M T 59102
(406) 256-1019
T oll F ree: 1-888-232-2626
950 N orth M on tan a A ven u e
H elen a, M T 59601
(406) 443-7878
301 E ast B road w ay
S u ite 2
M issou la, M T 59802
(406) 543-9550
105 S m elter A ven u e, N E
S u ite 16
G reat F alls, M T 59404
(406) 454-1066
reh b erg.h ou se.gov w w w .fa ca b o o k .co m /d en n y .reh b erg .m t w w w .tw itter.co m /d en n y reh b erg
NLRB-FOIA-00008826
Y our com plaint,M r.Solom on,strikes atthe heartofBoeing's respected business m odel,and is
reportedly already having a chilling effecton entity's w ho are considering constructing new
facilities in the U nited States.Ata tim e w hen this econom y needs allthe investm entitcan get,
this draconian rem edy sends exactly the w rong m essage to allbusinesses:large and sm all,and
creates an overw helm ing disincentive to new econom ic investm ent.
In a recentstatem entyou said that"there is nothing rem arkable or unprecedented aboutthe
com plaintissued againstthe Boeing C om pany on April20...M lle com plaintinvolves m atters of
factand law thatare notunique to this case....".I do find this com plaintrem arkable,and I am
seriously concerned w ith the use ofagency resources to pursue such an extraordinary and
unusualrem edy given the detrim entaleconom ic im pactitis certain to cause.Atthe very least,
the N LR B needs to articulate a clear basis for this com plaint.
Therefore,I am requesting exam ples ofother com plaints w here the O ffice ofG eneralC ounsel
has m ade sim ilar allegations thatw ere:
1. Based upon an entity's decision regarding w here to locate new w ork or a new
production/m anufacturing line,rather than the transfer ofexisting w ork (w hich is the case
w ith Boeing),and
2. M ade in absence ofthe entity being form ally accused or cited for taking adverse actions
againstunion em ployees.
Please also provide inform ation regarding the resolution ofsuch cases,including finalrem edies,
ifany.
Thank you very m uch for your tim ely response to m y request.
Sincerely,
D enny R ehberg
Chairm an
H ouse Appropriations C om m ittee
Subcom m ittee on Labor,H ealth and H um an Services,Education and R elated Agencies
NLRB-FOIA-00008827
Q :o ltg rev iti ill th e ilititeb
tic 20513
M ay 1 3 , 2 0 1 1
L afe E . S o lo m o n
A ctin g G en eral C o u n sel
N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s B o ard
1099
14th
S treet..N .W .
W ash in g to n . D .C . 2 0 :5 7 0
D ear "% clin g G en eral C o u n sel S o lo m o n :
W e h av e clo sely m o n ito red th e activ ities at y o u r o ffice Ib r sev eral m o n th s an d h av e b eco m e
in creasin g ly co n cern ed b y w h at w e p erceiv e to b e an activ ist. jo b -d estro y in g ag en d a.
S in ce .
S ep tem b er 2 0 1 0 . y o u h av e issu ed m u ltip le m em o ran d a o n issu es ran g in g fro m d ie u se o f
u n co m m o n rem ed ies to th e sco p e o f d eferen ce to a co n tractu al arb itratio n aw ard . O n M arch I I,
2 0 1 1 . y o u ask ed reg io n al sw ift id en titY o p p o rtu n ities fo r th e N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s B o ard
(N L R B ) to O v erru le th e 2 0 0 7 d ecisio n s in
G rosven or R esin., and
S i. G e ttrg e W a re h o u se .
req u irin g em p lo y ers to sh o w th at w o rk ers w h o lo st th eir jo b s d u e to u n fair lab o r p ractices d id n o t
m ak e reaso n ab le eltb rts to red u ce o r m itig ate th eir d am au es. Ju st last m o n th , y o u in fo rm ed th e
A tto rn ey s G en eral o f A rizo n a. S o u th D ak o ta. U tah . an d S o u th C aro lin a o f p lan s to in itiate a
fed eral law su it th at w o u ld in v alid ate am en d m en ts to th eir state co n stitu tio n s g u aran teein g secret
b allo t electio n s in u n io n rep resen tatio n cam p aig n s. T h ese actio n s rep resen t a p attern o f
b u reau cratic activ ism th at calls in to q u estio n th e cib jectiv ity an d cred ib ility o f y o u r o ffice.
T h e m o st recen t ex am p le o f th is ap p aren t b ias is fo u n d in y o u r

-c om p lain t ag ain st T h e B o ein u
C o rp o ratio n (B o ein g ). A lth o u g h th e facts id le ease are still in d isp u te. it ap p ears n o u n io n
e m p lo ye e al th e P u g et so u n d facility h as lo st h is o r h er jo b
as a resu lt o f B o ein g 's d ecisio n to
o p en a seco n d p ro d u ctio n lin e in S o u th C aro lin a. O n th e co n trary . B o ein g h as ad d ed m o re th an
2 .0 0 0 u n io n jo b s in P u g et S o u n d . In filin g th is co m p lain t. y o u are sacrificin g S o u th C aro lin a
jo b s to fu rth er an activ ist ag en d a, effectiv ely ro b b in g P eter to p ay P au l. T h e ram ificatio n s o f th is
case ex ten d b ey o n d one sp ecific state an d w ill in stead h av e a lastin g im p act o n jo b creato rs
acro ss th e co u n try as th ey w eig h th e ad v an tag es an d d isad v an tag es o f fu tu re in v estm en t in th e
U n ited S tates.
T ak en to g eth er. y o u r actio n s th reaten fu tu re eco n o m ic g ro w th an d jo b creatio n an d reflect an
u n sav o ry cu ltu re o f u n io n fav o ritism . W e d em an d v o n cease y o u r b u reau cratic activ ism
NLRB-FOIA-00008828
im m e d ia te ly a n d re sto re th e o b je ctivity th a t is e sse n tia l to th e e ffe ctive n e ss a n d cre d ib ility o f th e
C ienend C ounsel's office.
S incerely.
../
R e p ..lo e W ilso n
,-
/-"/
':-
. "
0 ( ) V ( ..) I
1
C oiv
d
y
fI
-,..)
// (-I
1fi
..:

..../I
..
LITXX
). V irg in ia F o xx
R ep.D uncan D .Ilunter
e lo
R e p .'rim W lb e F g
R ep.S cott D cs.larlais
R ep. Todd
R okita
R e p .K risti N o e m
(f.).
R ep.M artha R obs'
f,
.;//
R ep, D ennis R oss
A ? '
1/4 f:.-L kji
R e p . M ike K e lly .1 1
NLRB-FOIA-00008829
O N E .H U N D R E D 'T W E L F T H C O N G R E S S
D A R R E L L E . 154.. C A L IF O R N IA
cH ronm A N
:N tR A T IA
ug.t:
JO H N L . M IC A . F L O R ID A
T O D D R U S S E L L P L A T T S , P E N N S Y L V A N IA .
M IC H A E L R . T U R N E R . O H IO
P A T R IC K M cH E N R N O R IN C A R O L IN A
JIM JO R D A N . O H IO
JA S O N C IIA F F E Z. U T A H
c o v v r. M A C K .F L O R ID A
T im W A L P E R G . M IC H IG A N
JA M E S L A N aorto. O K L A H O M A
J u S lu i A m A sn , M IC H IG A N
A N N M A R IE B U E R K L E . N E W Y O R K
F A L iL A . G O S K R , D .D .S ., A M Z O N A
P A U L R :L A R R A D O H . ID A H O
P A T R IC K M E E H A N . P E N N S Y L V A N IA
S C O T T D E S JA M M S . M .O .. T E N N E S S E E
JO E W A L S H . 1 1 .1 1 = 7 5
I R E Y G O W D Y , S O U T H C A R O L IN A
D E N tliS A . R O S S , F L O R ID A
F R A N K C . M A N T A . N E W H A M P S H IR E
SL A K E F A R M M O L D . T E X A S
M IK E K E E E Y ,P E N N SY L V A N IA
Congrefig ofthe Eittiteb M ates
lipuffe ofRepreoentatibeO
C O M M IT T E E O N O V E R S IG H T A N D G O V E R N M E N T R E F O R M
L A W F iE tirE .J. O ftA fri
S T A F F ()M I C (O F (
2157 R A Y B U R N H O U S E O F F IC E B U IL D IN G
W A S H IN G T O N , D C 2 0 5 1 5 -6 1 4 3
ii..02j225-50t1
ijin 7 A S K )S i.1
!A M .:25-5C M
E LIJA H E
IIN C S . M A R T IA L :0
R A N K IN G M IN O R IT Y M E M B E R
Y O !...'S . N E W y o (ie.
C A R O L V N P . !A A L O N E , .N E W Y O R K .
E LE A N O R
. . !E l
N o n T O N
D !:: T R A C T L O L U M R IA
0E 770I5 j. K L F C :N IC H . 0,110
J O I.I F T :E !.... M A S S A E H L ;E h .:1 (1 .;
L A C .'tI , . L !!SSE , .11.1.
$717F tii:7:
.1 5 7 co o ? e rt.
E !E R A I I E C O .:N C .; I r,
M IK E C ILE II.P.E
LIN O !!!
D A N N Y K D A L IS . IL L IN E /IS
F iR U C E L . D R A M :,. IO W A
P E F E /I W E I.C .11.V E IIM U IL1
JO H N A . Y A R L IO III. K E N T U C K Y
C H R IS T O P H E R S . M U R P H Y , C O
N E C I (C U T
JA C K IE S P E IE R . C A L IF O R M A
ed...
M ay 12,2011
Lafe E .Solom on
N ationalLabor R elations B oard
1099 14th Street,N W
D ear M r.Solom on:
T he C om m ittee on O versight and G overnm ent R eform is conducting oversight of recent
legalactions taken by the O ffice of G eneralC ounselof the N ationalLabor R elations B oard
("N LR B " or "B oard").W e w rite to you concerning tw o issues.
First,on M arch 26,2010,the InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and A erospace
W orkers ("1A M ") charged'that the B oeing C om pany ("B oeing" or "R espondent") engaged in
unfair labor practices under the N ationalLabor R elations A ct (the "A ct").
2 O n A pril 20,2011,
after an investigation into the IA M 's charges,you,as A cting G eneralC ounselof the N LR B ,
issued a C om plaint and N otice of H earing against B oeing pursuant to 10(b) of the A ct and
102.15 of the B oard's R ules and R egulations.
Since 1975,the IA M has been designated the exclusive collective bargaining
representative ("U nit") of B oeing's production and m aintenance em ployees in W ashington State
and Portland,O regon! T he m ost recent collective bargaining agreem ent betw een B oeing and
the 1A M has been in effect since N ovem ber 2,2008,and is effective untilSeptem ber 8,2012.4 j
T he B oard's C om plaint arises from B oeing's transfer of its second 787 D ream liner
production line of three planes per m onth from the U nit to its non-union site in N orth C harleston,
South C arolina in O ctober of 2009.5T he B oard charged B oeing w ith "interfering w ith,
restraining,and coercing em ployees" in the exercise of their rights,"discrim inating in regard to
the hire or tenure or term s or conditions of em ploym ent of its em ployees," and engaging "in
IB oeing and International A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers D istrict Lodge 751,
affiliated w ith
Internallonal A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers, before the N ationalLabor R elations B oard,R egion
19, U nited S tates of A m erica,C ase N o.19-C A -3243l[hereinafter "C om plaint"].
2 29 U .
S .C . 151 et seq.
3 C O M PLA IN T , supra note 1 at 4.
Id.
s Id.at 5.
NLRB-FOIA-00008830
M r.L ale E .Solom on
M ay 12.2011
Page 2
unfair labor practices affecting com m erce" therefore violating 8(a)(3) and (1) and 2(6) and
coercive statem ents to its em ployees that it
(7) of
A ct.6 T he B oard found that.B oeing
w ould rem ove or had rem oved w ork from the U nit because em ployees had struck and
R espondent threatened or im pliedly threatened that the U nit w ould lose additional w ork in the
eventof future strikes." 7
B oeing has responded thatithe .B oard's C om plaintis legally frivolous adding thatthe
one thousand jobs B oeing created in South C arolina.have not 'com e at the expense of jobs in the
State of W ashington.8 Furtherm ore,B oeing's South C arolina facility,w hich it announced plans
to build seventeen m onths ago,is nearly com plete.9
Peter Schaum ber,the form er chairm an of the B oard,has .described the 'B oard's m ove as
unprecedented." I Schaum ber has argued "[t]he w orkers don't have any claim to the w ork....
If the w orkers don't have any claim to the w ork,it w asn't retaliatory to open a new second
production line....It is sim ply expanding its business operation."'
A letter from nine state A ttorneys G eneral including A lan W ilson,the A ttorney G eneral
of South C arolina called on the B oard to w ithdraw its com plaintagainstB oeing,describing it
as "an assaultupon the constitutional right to free speech,and the ability of our states to create
jobs and recruit industry ."I2 T he A ttorneys G eneral w rote,'[y]our ill-conceived

retaliato ry
action seeks to destroy our citizens' right to w ork.It is South C arolina and B oeing today,but
w ill be any of our states,w ith our right to w ork guarantees,tom orrow ....[t]his unparalleled and
overreaching action seeks to drive & stake through the heart of the free enterprise system ."
I3
Second,w e note that you have directed the N L R B to file law suits against the states of
A rizona and South D akota. i4 W e understand that the N L R B seeks to invalidate constitutional
am endm ents passed by these states protecting w orkers'rights to secret ballot elections.T he
N L R B is apparently seeking to adm inistratively im pose card check, I5 now that efforts to pass
Id . at 7.
Id. at 4.
Id.
a va ila b le
R ELEA SE,B O EIN G C O M PA N Y , B o e in g to F ig h t N L R B C o m p la in t B a ck b y U n io n , (A pr. 20, 2011),

(last
visited
M
ay
2,
2011).
Im
pfiboeing.
m
ediaroom
.
com
/index.
php?s=
43&
item
=
1714
at
3 PR ESS
F oxN E w S ,
B erger, E x-L a b o r B o a rd C h a irm a n : .U n io n -B a cke d C a se A g a in st B o e in g 'U n p re ce d e n te d ',

1104/26/pc-labor-board-chairm
all-U
ninn-backed -
(A pr. 26, 2011), a va ila b le a t Intp://w W w . foxnew s.com /politics/201

case-boeing-unprecedetited/ (last visited.A pr. 30. 2011).
"
et al., to L ate E . S olom on, A cting G eneral C ounsel,
12 L E T T E R , A far'W ilson, A ttorney G eneral of S outh C arolina,

.at
1
.
N ational L abor R elations B oard (A pr. 28, 2011)
" Id .
14 L etter, L ate S olom on, A cting G eneral C ounsel, N L R B , to A ttorney G enerals of A rizona, S outh D akota, U tah, and
W A LL. STR I:Fr
S outh C arolina (A pr. 22, 2011).

S ee also M elanie.T rottm an, Lab or B oard W arns on S ecret B allots,
a
va
i
l
a
b
l
e
a
t
J., (Jan. 15, 2011),

Im pR online.w sj.com iarticle/S 1310001424052748704637704576082334037133042.htm 1?m od googlenew s_w sj (last
i Judson
visited M ar. 1, 2011).
W A L L S T R ocr J., S ept. 14, 2010, at A 20 (suggesting C raig. B ecker w ill
15 S ee E ditorial, B a ck D o o r C a rd C h e ck,
push the N L R B to im plem ent card check through the adjudicator) ,process).
NLRB-FOIA-00008831
M r.L afe E .Solom on
M ay 12,2011
Page 3
card-check legislation have failed to gain support in C ongress. 16 Y ou are currently challenging
the authority of states to protect w orkers'rights to secret-ballot elections before their jobs can be
unionized.Y ou seek to invalidate constitutional am endm ents passed in A rizona and South
D akota protecting w orkers'rights to secret ballot elections reserving the right to also sue the
states of U tah and South C arolina.In a letter you w rote to these states'A ttorneys G eneral,you
claim that the state law s are "preem pted by operation of the.N L R A (29 U .S.C .151,et seq.) and
the Suprem acy C lause of the U nited States C onstitution (U .S.C onst.A rt IV ,cl.2)." I7
A ccording to one critic of card check,the N L R B 's actions reflect the B oard's
determ ination "to accom plish card check by backdoor m eans against the w ishes of the A m erican
people and C ongress." 18 L atelast year,the D em ocratic m ajority on the B oard "indicated its
interest in overturning a B ush-eraT uling allow ing som e w orkers to challenge a card-check
certification agreed to by a com pany and m ajority of its w orkers." I9 M arshall B abson,a
m anagem ent law yer appointed to a D em ocratic seat on the N L R B by form er President R onald
R eagan,described the N L R B 's actions as "a perversion of w hat adm inistrative law is supposed
to be."2
T he C om m ittee is carefully evaluating labor policy given the current econom ic clim ate.
T he N L R B 's recent actions to address labor activity are likely to im pact A m erica's econom ic
recovery.T hey also raise issues of great public im portance.In light of these concerns,the
C om m ittee seeks inform ation regarding the N L R B 's com m unications and policies.T he
C om m ittee requests that you provide the follow ing docum ents and inform ation for the tim e
period from January 1,2009,to .the present:
1) A lldocum ents and com m unications referring or relating to the O ffice of G eneral
C oinseL linyohgatizi of B oeing,iticlaffirC but not lim ited to all com m unications
betw een the O ffice of G eneral C ounsel and the N ational L abor R elations B oard.
.
.,.
2) A ll docum ents-,including em ails.and call logs,and com m unications betw een anyone in
the O ffice of G eneral C ounsel or the N ational L abor R elations B oard and the
InternationalA ssociation -otM achinictq
3) A lldocum ents,including em ails and calllogs, and .com m unications betw een the O ffice
o.f G eneral C ounsel or the N ational L abm itelations B oard and any
the B oeing C om pany.
4) A ll docum ents referring or relating to the O ffice of G eneral C ounsel's investigations of
1 S am H ananel, F eds threaten to sue slates over union law s, A P ,(Jan.14,2011), (m ailable at
httplinew s.yahoo.com ls/ap/201101141ap_on_re_uslus_unions_secret_ballots (last visited M ar. 3, 2011).
17 S upra note 14.
18 H ananel, supra note 15, (quoting P hilK erpen, V ice P resident for P olicy. A m ericans for P rosperity).
19 S teven P earlstein, O u r m o d e rn tw ist o n th e o ld w o rld p o litica l d e a th sp ira l, W A SH . P ow ., (Feb.27,2011),
a va ila b le a t lutp://w w w .w ashingtonpostcom A vp-dynkontent'artiC le/2011/021261A R 2011022600109.htm l(last
visited M ar. 1, 2011).
2 Id. (quoting M arshallB abson).
NLRB-FOIA-00008832
M r.Lafe E.Solom on
M ay 12,2011
Page 4
Please provide the requested docum ents and inform ation as soon as possible,butno later
than 5:00 p.m .on M ay 27,2011.W hen producing docum ents to the C om m ittee,please deliver
production sets to the M ajority Staff in room 2157 of the R ayburn H ouse O ffice B uilding and the
M inority Staff in R oom 2471 of the R ayburn H ouse O ffice B uilding.The C om m ittee prefers,if
possible,to receive alldocum ents in electronic form at.
The C om m ittee on O versightand G overnm entR eform is the principaloversight
com m ittee of the H ouse of R epresentatives and m ay at"any tim e" investigate "any m atter" as set
forth in H ouse R ule X .A n attachm entto this letter provides additionalinform ation about
responding to the C om m ittee's request.
If you have any questions aboutthis request,please contactK rishna M oore or D aniel
Epstein of the C om m ittee Staff at202-225-5074.Thank you for your attention to this m atter.
Sincerely,
D arrellIssa
C hairm an
C om m ittee on O versightand
G overnm entR eform
T rey G ody
C hairm an
Subcom m ittee on H ealth C are,
D istrictof C olum bia,
C ensus and the N ationalA rchives
D ennis R oss
C hairm an
Subcom m ittee on FederalW orkforce,
U .S.PostalService and Labor Policy
Enclosure
cc: T he H onorable E lijah E .C um m ings,R anking M inority M em ber
The H onorable Stephen Lynch,R anking M inority M em ber,
Subcom m ittee on FederalW orkforce,U .S.PostalService & Labor Policy
The H onorable D anny D avis,R anking M inority M em ber,
Subcom m ittee on H ealth C are,D istrictof C olum bia,C ensus and the N ationalA rchives
NLRB-FOIA-00008833
D A R R ELL E.ISSA ,C A LIFO R N IA
ELIJA H E.C U M M IN G S,M A R Y LA N D
CH AIRM AN
R A N K IN G M IN O R ITY M EM BER
O N E H U N D R E D T W E LFT H C O N G R E SS
Com m a(oftbe lititteb Sptateo
li)oucle ofiSepregeittatibtg
C O M M IT T E E O N O V E R S IG H T A N D G O V E R N M E N T R E F O R M
2157 R A Y B U R N H O U SE O FFIC E B U ILD IN G
W A S H IN G T O N , D C 20515-6143
M ajo rity (202) 225-5074
M inority (202) 225-5051
R esponding to C om m ittee D ocum ent R equests
I.In com plying w ith this request,you should produce allresponsive docum ents thatare
in your possession,custody,or control,w hether held by you or your pastor present
agents,em ployees,and representatives acting on your behalf.Y ou should also
produce docum ents thatyou have a legalrightto obtain,thatyou have a rightto copy
or to w hich you have access,as w ellas docum ents thatyou have placed in the
tem porary possession,custody,or controlofany third party.R equested records,
docum ents,data or inform ation should notbe destroyed,m odified,rem oved,
transferred or otherw ise m ade inaccessible to the C om m ittee.
2.In the eventthatany entity,organization or individualdenoted in this requesthas
been,or is also know n by any other nam e than thatherein denoted,the requestshall
be read also to include thatalternative identification.
3. The C om m ittee's preference is to receive docum ents in electronic form (i.e.,C D ,
m em ory stick,or thum b drive)in lieu ofpaper productions.
4.
D ocum ents produced in electronic form atshould also be organized,identified,and
indexed electronically.
5. Electronic docum entproductions should be prepared according to the follow ing
standards:
(a) The production should consistofsingle page Tagged Im age File ("TIF"),files
accom panied by a C oncordance-form atload file,an O pticon reference file,and a
file defining the fields and character lengths ofthe load file.
(b) D ocum entnum bers in the load file should m atch docum entBates num bers and
TIF file nam es.
(c) Ifthe production is com pleted through a series ofm ultiple partialproductions,
field nam es and file order in allload files should m atch.
NLRB-FOIA-00008834
6.
D ocum ents produced to the C om m ittee should include an index describing the
contents of the production. T o the extent m ore than one C D . hard drive, m em ory
stick, thum b drive, box or folder is produced, each C D , hard drive, m em ory stick,
thum b drive, box or folder should contain an index describing its contents.
7.
D ocum ents produced in response to-this request shall be produced together w ith
copies of file labels, dividers or identifying m arkers w ith w hich they w ere associated
w hen they w ere requested.
8. \\T hen you produce docum ents, you should identify the paragraph in the C om m ittee's
request to. w hich the docum ents respond..
9.
It shall not be a basis for refusal to. produce docum ents that any other person or entity
also possesses non-identical or identical copies of the sam e docum ents.
10. If any of the requested inform ation is only reasonably available in m achine-readable
form (such as on a com puterserver, hard drive, or com puter backup tape), you should
. consult w ith the C om m ittee staff to determ ine the appropriate form at in w hich to
produce the inform ation:
11. If com pliance w ith the request cannot be m ade in full, com pliance shall be m ade to
the extent possible and shall include an explanation of w hy full com pliance is not
possible.
12. In the event that a .docum ent is w ithheld on the basis of privilege, provide a privilege
log containing the follow ing inform ation concerning any such .docum ent: (a) the
privilege asserted; (b) the type of docum ent; (c) the general subject m atter; (d) the
date, author and addressee; and (e) the relationship of the author and addressee to
each other.
13. If any docum ent responsive to this request w as, but no longer is, in your possession,
custody, O r contrO l, identify the docum ent (stating its date, author, subject and
recipients) and explain the circum stances under w hich the docum ent ceased to be in
your possession, custody, or control.
14. If a date or other descriptive detail set forth in this request referring to a docum ent is
inaccurate, but the actual date or other descriptive detail

.is know n to you or is
otherw ise apparent from the context of the request, you should produce all docum ents
w hich w ould be responsive as if the date or other descriptive detail w ere correct.
15. T he tim e period covered by this request is included in the attached request. T o the
extent a tim e .period.is not specified, produce relevant docum ents from January 1,
2009 to the present.
16. T his request is continuing in nature and applies to any new ly-discovered inform ation.
A ny record, docum ent, com pilation of data or inform ation, not produced because it
has not been located or discovered by the return date, shall be produced im m ediately
upon .subsequent location or discovery.
NLRB-FOIA-00008835
17. A ll docum ents:shall be B ates-stam ped sequentially and produced sequentially.
18. T w o sets of docum ents shall be delivered, one set to the M ajority S taff and one set to
the M inority S taff W hen docum ents are produced to the C om m ittee, production sets
shall bedelivered to the M ajority S taff in R oom 2157of the R ayburn H ouse O ffice
B uilding and the M inority S taff iii R oom 2471of the R ayburn H ouse O ffice B uilding.
19. U pon com pletion of the docum ent production, you should subm it a.w ritten
certification, signed byou or your counsel, stating that: (I) a diligent search has
been com pleted of all docum ents in your possession, custody, or control w hich
reasonably could contain responsive docum ents; and (2) all docum ents located during
the search that are responsivelave been produced to the C om m ittee.
D efinitions
I. T he term "docum ent" m eans any w ritten, recorded, or graphic m atternf any nature
w hatsoever, regardless of how recorded, and w hether original or copy, including, but
not lim ited to, the follow ing: m em oranda, reports, expense reports, books, m anuals,
instructions, financial reports, w orking papers, records, notes, letters, notices,
confirm ations, telegram s, receipts, appraisals. pam phlets. m agazines, new spapers,
prospectuses, inter-office and intra-oftice com m unications, electronic m ail (e-m ail).
contracts, cables, notations of any type of conversation, telephone call, m eeting or
other com m unication, bulletins, printed m atter, com puter printouts, teletypes,
invoices, transcripts, diaries, analyses, returns, sum m aries, m inutes, bills, accounts,
estim ates, projections, com parisons, m essages, correspondence, press releases,
circulars, financial statem ents, review s, opinions, oilers ;studies and investigations,
questionnaires and surveys, and w ork sheets (and all drafts, prelim inary versions,
alterations, m odifications, revisions, changes, and am endm ents of any of the
foregoing,:as w ell as any attachm ents or appendices thereto), and graphic or oral
records or representations of any kind (including w ithout lim itation, photographs,
charts, graphs ., m icrofiche, m icrofilm , videotape, recordings and m otion pictures). and
electronic, m echanical, and electric records or representations of any kind (including,
w ithout lim itation, tapes, cassettes, disks, and recordings) and other w ritten, printed,
typed, or other graphic or recorded m atter of an y k in d o r n atu re, h o w ev er p ro d u ced or
reproduced, and w hether preserved in w riting, film , tape, disk, videotape or
otherw ise. A docum ent bearing any notation not a part of the original text is to be
considered a separate docum ent. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate docum ent
w ithin the m eaning of this term .
1 .
T he tent "com m unication" m eans each m anner or m eans of disclosure or exchange
of inform ation, regardless of m eans utilized, w hether oral, electronic, by docum ent or
otherw ise, and w hether in a m eeting, by telephone, facsim ile, em ail, regular m ail,
telexes, releases, or otherw ise.
3. T he term s "and" and "or" shall be construed broadly and either conjunctively or
disjunctively to bring w ithin the scope of this request any inform ation w hich m ight
NLRB-FOIA-00008836
otherw ise be construed to be outside its scope. T he singular includes plural num ber,
and vice versa. T he m asculine includes the fem inine and neuter genders.
4.
T he term s "person" or "persons" m ean natural persons, firm s, partnerships,
associations, corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, departm ents, joint ventures,
proprietorships, syndicates, or other legal, business or governm ent entities, and all
subsidiaries, affiliates; divisions, departm ents, branches, or other units thereof.
5.
T he term "identify," w hen used in a question aboutindividuals, m eans to provide the
follow ing inform ation: (a) the individual's com plete nam e and title; and (b) the
individual's business address and .p hone.num ber.
6.
T he term "referring or relating," w ith respect to any given subject, m eans anything
that constitutes, contains, em bodies, reflects, identifies, states, refers to, deals w ith or
is pertinent to. that subject in any m anner w hatsoever.
NLRB-FOIA-00008837
M A IL441'Y M E M B E R S :
4 ,
ttfil)
J0 1 1 K L IN E . M IN N E S O T A . C h a irm a n
T H O M A S E . P E T R I, W IS C O N S IN
H O W A R D P . "B U C K " M cK E O N . C A L IF O R N IA
JU D Y B R IG E R T . IL L IN O IS
T O D D R U S S E L L P L A IT S . P E N N S Y L V A N IA
JO E W IL S O N . S O U T H C A R O L IN A
V IR G IN IA F O X X . N O R T H C A R O L IN A
!ILIN C .A N H U N T E R . C A L IF O R N IA
D A V ID P . R O E , T E N N E S S E E
G L E N N T H O M P S O N . P E N N S Y L V A N IA
D M W A L S E R , M IC H IG A N
S C O T T O rsJA R LA IS . T E N N E S S E E
R IC H A R D L H A N N A , N E W Y O R K
T O D D R O M IA . IN D IA N A
L A R R Y B U C S H O N . IN D IA N A
T R E Y D O W D Y . S O U T H C A R O L IN A
L O U B A R L E T T A . P E N N S Y L V A N IA
K R IS T I L H O E K S O U T H D A K O T A
M A R T H A R O S Y .A LA B A M A
JO S E P H J IIE C K . N E V A D A
D E N N IS A . R O S S , F LO R ID A
M IK E K E L L Y . P E N N S Y L V A N IA
'V a ca n t,
C O M M IT T E E O N E D U C A T IO N
A N D TH E W O R K FO R CE
U .S . H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N T A T IV E S
2181 R A Y B U R N H O U S E O F F IC E B U ILD IN G
W A S H IN G T O N , D C 205 15-610 0
M IN O R IT Y M E M T 3F F IS .
G E O R G E M ILLE R . C A LIF O R N IA
S n n in r D e m o crm ic M a n th e r
D A LE E . K ILD E E . M IC H IG A N . V ic ,: C h a irm a
D O N A LD M . P A Y N E .. N E W JE R S E Y
R O B E R T E . A N D R E W S . N E W JI:F iS E Y
R O B E R T C 'R E llith " S C O T T , ..IR G IN IA
LY N N C . W O O LS E Y . C A L 'F O R A IA
R U B E N H IA 0 .1 0 S A . T E X A S
C A R O LY N M r.C A R T H Y . N E W Y O R K
JO H N F . T IE R N E Y . M A S S A C IIL,S E T T K
D E N N IS .1. K O C IN IC H . O H IO
D A V ID W U . O R E G O N
R U S H D . H O LE . N E W JE R S E Y
S U S A N A . D A V IS . C A L IF O R N IA
P A U L M . G R IJA L V A , A R IZ O N A
T IM O T IT Y H . B IS H O P . N E W Y O R K
D A V ID LO E B S A C K . IO W A
M A Z IE K . H IR O N O . H A W A II
M ay 5,2011t
L afe E .Solom on
1099 14
th
Street,N .W .
D ear A cting G eneralC ounselSolom on:
T he N ationalL abor R elations B oard's (N L R B ) recent action against T he B oeing C om pany is deeply
troubling.A lthough the facts of the case are stillin dispute,its eventualoutcom e could have significant
consequences for job-creators and w orkers. In light of the potentialim pact on the nation's w orkforce,
apparent inconsistencies surrounding the N L R B 's -A pril20,2011 com plaint m erit further explanation.
A s you are aw are,on M arch 26,2010,the InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and A erospace
W orkers D istrict L odge N o. 751 filed a charge w ith the N L R B claim ing B oeing violated sections 80(3)
and 8(a)(1) of the N ationalL abor R elations A ct (N L R A ). C entralto the charge is B oeing's decision to
locate a second 787 D ream liner assem bly line in C harleston,South C arolina.T he com plaint references
alleged statem ents m ade by B oeing officials betw een O ctober 2009 and M arch 2010 that w ork stoppages
w ere one reason for choosing the new location.
W hen asked about the charge in June 2010, the N L R B regionaldirector R ichard A hearn told The Seattle
_ o en h acl ex istin g w o rk fro m
_
an easier case for the union to argue_10i
Tim es
it w ould have been
H
e
w
as
al
so
unable to point to any "bright line"
w
ork
in
C
harl
eston.
"'
E verett,rather than
acm new
2
ru e to determ ine w hether the com pany's actions violated the law . Finally, the regionaldirector stated
"an initialruling is w eeks aw ay." 3
M ore than 10 m onths later on A pril20,2011,M r.A hearn issued a com plaint.In contrast to previous
Tit
-117trttre-regianal
statem ents, he now alleges B oeing "transferred" w ork from W ashington.4 A ccor
G ates,D om inic, M achinists file unfair labor charge against B oeing over C harleston,T he Seattle T im es,June 4,2010.
A vailable at htto://seattletim es.nw source.com /htm l/businesstechnology/2012034258 boeing05.htm l.
2
Id.
3 Id.
C om plaint and N otice of H earing: The B oeing C om pany and international A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers
4
D istrict Lodge 751, C ase 19-C A -32431,Page 5.
NLRB-FOIA-00008838
A cting G eneralC ounselLafe Solom on
M ay 5,2011
Page 2
director,the transfer of the assem bly line in conjunction w ith alleged com m ents M ade by com pany
__officials violates the N LR A .5
W hile w e understand thatno union em ployee atthe PugetSound facility has losthis or her job or been
financially harm ed by w hatappears to be a legitim ate business decision,the N LR B is seeking an
extraordinary rem edy thatrequires B oeing to relocate its operations across the country.
6 This w ould have
a detrim entalim pacton the econom y and w orkers of South C arolina,as w ellas have a chilling effect
upon businesses across the country.
The pivotin position by N LR B officials,as w ellas the unusualtim ing,raises serious concerns that
- onal
-
inquiry.T o better understand the appropriateness and evolution of this com plaint,
w rrai
i-gessi
provide the follow ing no later than M ay 19,2011:
1.A descrition of w hattranspired betw een June 2010 and A pril2011 thatled the N L R B to alter its
opinion in this m atter;
2. A ll d o cu m en ts an d co m m u n icatin n sth e N LR B R egion 19 office and the N LR B N ational_
office addressing the B oeing com plaint;
3. A ll docum ents and com m unications that supriott the N LR B 's position thatw ork is being,
"transferred" in this case;and
4. Past precedent that_u_t

su or
sanding that B oeing violated sections 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(1) of the
N LR A w hen it decided to locate,not transfer, a second assem bly line.
Thank you for your cooperation in this m atter.If you have any questions regarding this request,please
contactM arvin K aplan of the C om m ittee staff at(202) 225-7101.
Sincerely,
Joh line
C hairm an
Education and the W orkforce C om m ittee
ilR oe,M .D .
C hairm an
Subcom m ittee on H ealth,Em ploym ent,Labor
and Pensions
cc:The H onorable G eorge M iller,Senior D em ocratic M em ber,Education and the W orkforce C om m ittee
cc:The H onorable R obertA ndrew s,Senior D em ocratic M em ber,Subcom m ittee on H ealth,Em ploym ent,
Labor,and Pensions
5
6
1d. at6.
1d at7-8.
NLRB-FOIA-00008839
Acting G eneralC ounselL afe Solom on
M ay 5,2011
Page 3
1. In com plying w ith this request,you should produce allresponsive docum ents that are in your
possession,custody,or control,w hether held by you or your past or present agents,em ployees,
and representatives acting on your behalf.Y ou should also produce docum ents thatyou have a.
legalright to obtain,that you have a right to copy or to w hich you have access,as w ellas

docum ents thatyou have placed in the tem porary possession,custody,or controlofany third
party.R equested records.docum ents,-data or inform ation should notbe destroyed,m odified,.
rem oved,transferred or otherw ise m ade inaccessible to the C om m ittee.
2.
In the eventthatany entity,organization or individualdenoted in this requesthas been,or is also
know n by any other nam e than thatherein denoted,the requestshallbe read also to include that
alternative identification.
3.
T he C om m ittee's preference is to receive docum ents in electronic form .(i.e.,C D ,m em ory stick,
or thum b drive)in lieu ofpaper productions.
4.
D ocum ents produced in electronic form at should also be organized,identified,and indexed
electronically.
5.
E lectronic docum entproductions should be prepared according to the follow ing standards:
(a) T he production should consist of single page T agged Im age File ("T IP),files
accom panied by a C oncordance-form atload tile,an O pticon reference file,and a file
defining the fields and character lengths of the load file.
(b).D ocum ent num bers in the load file should m atch docum ent B ates num bers and T IF file
nam es.
(c) If the production is com pleted through a series of m ultiple partialproductions,field nam es
and tile order in allload files should m atch.
6.
D ocum ents produced to the C om m ittee should include an index describing the contents of the
production.T o the extentm ore than one CD,. hard drive,m em ory stick,thum b drive,box or folder
is produced,each C D ,hard drive,them ory stick,thum b drive,box or folder should contain an
index describing its contents.
7.
D ocum ents produced in response to this requestshallbe produced together w ith
copies of'file
labels,dividers or identifying m arkers w ith w hich they w ere associated w hen they w ere requested.
8.
W hen you produce docum ents,you should identify the paragraph in the C om m ittee's requestto
w hich the docum ents respond.
9.
Itshallnotbe a basis far refusalto produce docum ents thatany other person or entity also
possesses non-identicalor identicalcopies ofthe sam e docum ents.
NLRB-FOIA-00008840
A cting G eneralC ounselL afe Solom on
M ay 5,2011
Page 4
10.If any of the requested inform ation is only reasonably available in m achine-readable form (such as
on a com puter server,hard drive,or com puter backup tape),you should consult w ith the
C om m ittee staff to determ ine the appropriate form at in w hich to produce the inform ation.
.11. If com pliance w ith
ea.nriot be m ade in full,com pliance shallbe m ade to the extent
bs..t=
ingsL
possible and stiallinc1i_
idem eulanation_d_w _b_y-1111.1 com ptiatiee-is-riet-ftessi434e7

12.In the eventthata docum entis 'w ithheld O n the basis of privilege,prO vidta privilege log
containing the follow ing inform ation concerning any such docum ent: (a) the privilege asserted;(b)
the type of docum ent; (c) the generalsubject m atter; (d) the date,author and addressee; and (e) the
relationship of the author and.addressee to each other.
13.If any docum ent responsive to this request w as,but no longer is,in your possession.custody,or
control,identify the docum ent (stating its date,author,subject and recipients) and explain the
circum stances under w hich the docum ent ceased to be in your possession,custody,or control.
14.If a date or other descriptive detailset forth in this request referring to a docum ent is inaccurate,
but the actualdate or other descriptive detailis know n to you or is otherw ise apparent from the
context of the request,you should produce alldocum ents w hich w ould be responsive as if the date
or other descriptive detailw ere correct.
15.T he tim e period covered by this request is included in the attached request.T o the extent a tim e
period is not specified,Produce relevant docum ents from January 1,2009 to the present.
16.T his request is continuing in natur nd applies to any new ly-discovered inform ation.A ny record,
docum ent,com pi ation of data or inform ation,not produced because it has not been located or
discovered by the return date,shallbe produced im m ediately upon subsequent location or
discovery.
.-
17.A lldocum ents shallbe B ates-stam ped sequentially and produced sequentially..
18.T w o sets of docum ents should be delivered,one set to the M ajority Staff in R oom 2181
of the
R ayburn H ouse O ffice B uilding and one set to the M inority Staff in R oom 2101 of the R ayburn
H ouse O ffice B uilding.
19.U pon com pletion of the docum ent production,you should subm it a w ritten certification,signed by
you or your counsel,stating that: (1) a diligent search has been com pleted of alldocum ents in your
possession,custody,or controlw hich reasonably could contain responsive docum ents; and (2) all
docum ents located during the search that are responsive have been produced to the C om m ittee.
NLRB-FOIA-00008841
"4
A cting G eneralC ounselL afe Solom on
M ay 5,2011
Page 5
D efinitions
I.T he term "docum ent" m eans any w ritten,recorded,or graphic m atter of any nature w hatsoever,
regardless of how recorded,and w hether originalor copy,including,but not lim ited to,the
follow ing: m em oranda,reports,expense reports,books,m anuals,instructions,financialreports,
records,notes,letters,notices,confirm ations.,telegram s,receipts,appraisals:
w____a_papso,
orkii
pam phlets,m agazines,new spapers,prospectuses,inter-office and intra-office com m unications,
electronic m ail(e-m ail),contracts,cables,notations of any type of conversation,telephone call,
m eeting or other com m unication,bulletins,printed m atter,com puter printouts,teletypes,invoices,
transcripts,diaries,analyses,returns,sum m aries,m inutes,bills,accounts,estim ates,projections,
com parisons,m essages,correspondence,press releases,circulars,financialstatem ents,review s,
opinions,offers,studies and investigations,questionnaires and surveys,and w ork sheets (and ,all
drafts,prelim inary versions,alterations,m odifications,revisions,changes,and am endm ents of any
of the foregoing,as w ellas any attachm ents or appendices thereto),and graphic or oralrecords or
representations of any kind (including w ithout lim itation,photographs,charts,graphs,m icrofiche.
m icrofilm ,videotape,recordings and m otion pictures),and electronic,m echanical,and electric
records or representations of any kind (including,w ithout lim itation,tapes,cassettes,disks,and
recordings) and other w ritten,printed,typed,or other graphic or recorded m atter of any kind or
nature,how ever produced or reproduced,and w hether preserved in w riting,film ,tape,disk,
videotape or otherw ise.A docum ent bearing any notation not a part of the originaltext is to be
considered a separate docum ent.A draft or non-identicalcopy is a separate docum ent w ithin the
m eaning of this term .
2.
T he term "com m unication" m eans each m anner or m eans of disclosure or exchange of
inform ation,regardless of m eans utilized,w hether oral,electronic,by docum ent or otherw ise,and
w hether in a m eeting.by telephone,facsim ile,em ail,regular m ail,telexes,releases,or otherw ise.
3.
T he term s "and" and "or" shallbe construed broadly and either conjunctively or disjunctively,to
bring w ithin the scope of this request any inform ation w hich m ight otherw ise be construed to: be
outside its scope.T he singular includes pluralnum ber,and vice versa.T he m asculine includes the
fem inine and neuter genders.
4.
T he term s "person" or "persons" m ean naturalpersons,'firm s,partnerships,associations,
corporations,subsidiaries,divisions,departm ents,joint ventures,proprietorships,syndicates,or
other legal,business or governm ent entities,and allsubsidiaries,affiliates,divisions,departm ents,
branches,or other units thereof.
5.
T he term "identify," w hen used in a question about individuals,m eans to provide the follow ing
inform ation: (a) the individual's com plete nam e and title; and (b) the individual's business address
and phone num ber.
6.
T he term "referring or relating," w ith respect to any given subject,m eans anything that constitutes,
contains,em bodies,reflect s,identifies,states,refers to,deals w ith or is pertinent to that subject in
any m anner w hatsoever.
NLRB-FOIA-00008842
nM 1
L A FE E .SO L O M O N
B E FO R E T H E
N O R T H C H A R L E ST O N ,SO U T H C A R O L IN A
JU N E 17,2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008843
M r.C hairm an and distinguished M em bers ofthe C om m ittee:
I appear before you today as the A cting G eneralC ounselofthe N ationalL abor R elations
B oard,having been appointed to this position by President O bam a on June 21,2010.For
the 38 years before m y appointm ent,I have served as a career civilservantin m any
positions throughoutthe A gency,ranging from field exam iner,staffattorney,supervisory
attorney,and finally,as a m em ber of the Senior E xecutive Service.
I w ould like to startby acknow ledging thatw orkers in N orth C harleston are feeling
vulnerable and anxious because they are uncertain as to w hatim pactany finaldecision
com plaintw as notintended to harm the w orkers ofSouth C arolina,butrather,to protect
protected by the N ationalL abor R elations A ct,w ithout fearing discrim ination.B oeing
has every rightto m anufacture planes in South C arolina,or anyw here else,for that
I personally m etw ith the parties and I tried for three m onths to facilitate a settlem entof
dispute w ithoutthe costs and uncertainties associated w ith extended litigation.I believe
that,given the parties'longstanding bargaining relationship,a settlem entw ould serve the
NLRB-FOIA-00008844
interests ofthe parties and the w orkers and w ould prom ote industrialpeace.In the
U nion have a legalrightto presenttheir evidence and argum ents in a trialand to have
those issues be decided by the B oard and federalcourts.
I w ould like to begin by describing briefly the relevantregulatory fram ew ork and the role
of the O ffice of G eneralC ounselw ithin that fram ew ork.T he N ationalL abor R elations
A ctdivides responsibility over private-sector labor relations betw een the N ationalL abor
R elations B oard and the G eneralC ounselof the B oard.T he B oard adjudicates cases in
accordance w ith the procedures setforth in the A ctitself,the A dm inistrative Procedures
A ct,and the C onstitution.T he O ffice of the G eneralC ounselserves as a prosecutor of
labor law violations in such cases.
T he O ffice of the G eneralC ounselw as created by the T aft-H artley A m endm ents of 1947.
U nder Section 3(d)ofthe am ended A ct,the G eneralC ounselhas "finalauthority",on
behalfofthe B oard,w ith respectto the investigation and prosecution ofunfair labor
practice com plaints.In order to ensure that the new ly-established G eneralC ounselof the
N L R B w ould have both the independence and resources necessary to m ake final,
unreview able decisions in typically heated labor and m anagem ent controversies,Section
3(d) also provided that,w ith the exception of adm inistrative law judges and legal
assistants to B oard m em bers,G eneralC ounsel"shallexercise generalsupervision over
allattorneys em ployed by the B oard" and w ould have generalsupervision "over the
officers and em ployees in the regionaloffices." L ike m y predecessors,I have gone to
NLRB-FOIA-00008845
greatlengths to ensure thatallunfair labor practice charges,w hich m ustbe initiated by
private parties,are fairly considered,relying on "findings,reasons,precedents,checks
through appeals and through internalsupervision,and proceduralprotections."

See K .
D avis,D iscretionary Justice 207 (1969).
T o thatend,allcharges filed w ith our regionaloffices are carefully and im partially
investigated to determ ine w hether there is reasonable cause to believe that,under the
B oard's precedents,an unfair labor practice has been com m itted.Fairness to the parties
and sound developm ent of the law w eighs in favor of presenting these types of cases to
the B oard for decision,subject to review by the courts.See K enneth C .M cG uiness,
E ffectof the D iscretionary Pow er of the G eneralC ounselon the D evelopm entof the
Law, 29 G eo.W ash.L .R ev.385,397 (1960).I w ould not be fulfilling m y responsibilities
if! turned a blind eye to evidence that an unfair labor practice m ay have occurred.I took
an oath to enforce the N ationalL abor R elations A ctand to protectw orkers from unlaw ful
conduct.
T he G eneralC ounsel's concern w ith fairness to the parties does not end w ith the issuance
of the com plaint.T he Suprem e C ourt has recognized that the A ct and the B oard's rules
are designed to ensure thatproceedings are conducted in a m anner thatrespects the
private rights ofthe charging party and the charged party.

Autom obile W orkers v.
Scofield, 382 U .S.205,217-221 (1965).
NLRB-FOIA-00008846
T he Suprem e C ourthas also recognized that"C ongress intended to create an officer
independentofthe B oard to handle prosecutions, not m erely the filing of com plaints."
N LR B v.U nited F ood & C om m .W orkers U n.,

484 U .S.112,127 (1987) (em phasis in
original).T hus,throughout the proceeding,the G eneralC ounselrem ains m aster of the
com plaintand the charging party is notperm itted to pursue alternative theories ofa
violation w ithout the consent of the G eneralC ounsel.

See,e.g.,Team sters,Local282
(E .G .C lem ente C ontracting C orp.),

335 N L R B 1253,1254 (2001).T hroughout the
proceedings,the G eneralC ounselis responsible to ensure that the prosecution of the case
is justified by the facts and law .A s such,it rem ains open to the G eneralC ounselto m ake
concessions on issues of fact or law and to pursue settlem ent discussions w ith the charged
party --even over the objections ofthe charging party.
For allthese reasons,the actualfairness ofthe proceedings before the B oard --and,
equally im portant,the perception thatthe B oard's adm inistrative processes are fair --
in the case,and is not m aking decisions on the basis of politicalor other m atters not
properly before the Board.
A s you know ,the B oeing.hearing began on T uesday of this w eek before an
M y obligation to protect the independence of the O ffice of the G eneralC ounseland the
NLRB-FOIA-00008847
m aking here.I hope you w illshare m y com m itm ent that these proceedings not be
construed as an effortby the C ongress to exertpressure or attem ptto influence m y
prosecutorialdecisions in this case,w hich have been and w illcontinue to be m ade based
on the law and the m erits and in a m anner w hich protects the due process rights ofthe
litigants.
I com e here voluntarily out of respect for the oversight role of C ongress.I w illdo m y
bestto answ er your questions,consistentw ith m y obligations to the parties and to the
be fair and im partialso thatthe parties'due process rights,w hich are guaranteed by the
C onstitution,are preserved.O ur A m erican legalsystem of justice is guided by these
NLRB-FOIA-00008848
,0
oL L A R s
VA
R E A L W O R L D
E C O N O M IC S
:D O N A T E
to
T his article is from D o llars & S en se: R eal W orld E cono m ics, available at
http://w w w .dollarsandsense.org/archives/2011/0911eidelson.htm l
C onflicting D ream s
T h e strikes th at m ad e B o ein g a n atio n alflash p o in t.
1.10..on
B o ein g m ak es th e fu tu re. T h at's th e recu rrin g m essag e o f B o ein g 's "F u tu re o f F lig h t" to u r, w h ich b rin g s v isito rs fro m aro u n d th e w o rld
th ro u g h its E v erett facto ry in W ash in g to n S tate. T h e to u r b eg in s w ith a sig n an n o u n cin g th at B o ein g w ill "sh ap e th e fu tu re," an d th en carries y o u
th ro u g h em p lo y ee elev ato rs en co u rag in g rid ers to "em b race th e fu tu re."
' N o w B o ein g is in a h ig h -p ro file leg al b attle w ith n atio n al im p licatio n s. It's th e latest ro u n d in a d ecad es-lo n g lab o r stru g g le. A t stak e: D o
w o rk ers at B o ein g g et to sh ap e th eir o w n fu tu re, an d B o ein g 's? O r d o th ey ju st h av e to em b race o r rath er, su b m it to th e co rp o ratio n 's p lan ?
T h e N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s B o ard case ag ain st B o ein g d rew n atio n al h ead lin es th is su m m er, an d it w ill ag ain as th e case w in d s th ro u g h th e
b o ard 's p ro cess an d R ep u b lican s seize m o re o p p o rtu n ities to b ash P resid en t O b am a fo r ap p o in tin g b o ard m em b ers w h o m ay actu ally en fo rce lab o r
law ag ain st em p lo y ers. T h o u g h sev eral m ed ia o u tlets h av e ru n w ith R ep u b lican claim s th at th e case is an effo rt to p u n ish S o u th C aro lin ian s tb r th eir
state's rig h t-to -w o rk law , it's actu ally ab o u t B o ein g 's alleg ed effo rt to p u n ish its P u g et S o u n d w o rk ers fo r strik in g b y m o v in g w o rk to S o u th
C aro lin a. T h e N L R B 's G en eral C o u n sel issu ed th e co m p lain t (ro u g h ly co m p arab le to an in d ictm en t) after B o ein g ex ecu tiv es p u b licly an d
rep eated ly d eclared th at th ey w o u ld b e p ro d u cin g a n ew lin e o f D ream lin er aircraft in S o u th C aro lin a b ecau se P u g et S o u n d w o rk ers k ep t g o in g o n
strike fou r tim es since 1 98 9. T he N atio nal L ab or R elation s A ct pro tects the rig ht of w ork ers to strik e w ith ou t actual o r th reaten ed retaliatio n.
L ast m o n th I w en t to P u g et S o u n d to h ear d irectly fro m w o rk ers th ere w h y th ey 'v e ch o sen tim e an d ag ain to strik e.
T h e In tern atio n al A sso ciatio n o f M ach in ists rep resen ts 2 9 ,0 0 0 w o rk ers at B o ein g 's P u g et S o u n d p lan ts in R en to n , S eattle, an d E v erett.
A
dozen of them told m e how strikes have allow ed them to achieve and sustain their standard of living.
S afety an d S an e S ch ed u lin g
W orkers w ent on strike in .1989 to w in protections for safety and restrictions on ov ertim e. John Jorgenson, w ho just retired from B oeing
a fte r
4 5 y ears, is o n e o f six em p lo y ees in h is b u ild in g w h o w ere d iag n o sed w ith k id n ey can cer, w h ich h e b lam es in p art o n th e ch em icals th ey w o rk ed
w ith before the 1989 strike. T he strike w on new protective gear and the elim ination of dozens of chem icals judged unsafe.
Jo rg en so n say s ex cessiv e o v ertim e is o n e reaso n th at so m an y B o ein g w o rk ers fro m th e p re-1 9 8 9 p erio d are n o w d iv o rced , h im self in clu d ed .
H e rem em b ers w o rk in g elev en h o u rs a d ay w ith o u t a d ay o ff fo r 1 6 w eek s. H e w o u ld w o rry ab o u t fallin g asleep at w o rk o r w h ile d riv in g h o m e.
B rian P ellan d , w h o started w o rk at B o ein g in 1 9 8 8 , say s h e h ard ly saw h is k id s in h is first y ear o n th e jo b . "Y o u 're alw ay s lo o k in g at th e fu tu re,"
P ellan d say s, "an d y o u th in k y o u 're alw ay s g o in g to h av e tim e." B u t ev en tu ally th e m an d ato ry o v ertim e left h im feelin g "d ead b eat" an d "n u m b ."
S in ce th e 1 9 8 9 strik e h e's b een ab le to m ak e en o u g h m o n ey at B o ein g to su p p o rt h is k id s, w h ile sp en d in g en o u g h tim e o u tsid e o f w o rk to b e

in
th eir liv es. W ith o u t th e strik e, h e say s, "I w o u ld n 't k n o w th em . T h ey w o u ld n 't k n o w m e."
W h en I ask ed Jo rg en so n w h at h is life w o u ld b e lik e w ith o u t th at strik e, h e said "I'd p ro b ab ly still h av e to w o rk ," d esp ite th e b ack in ju ries th at
put him out on m edical leave for the final six m onths prior to his retirem ent at age 65. B efore he could describe w hat that w ould be like, his
w ife cut
h im o ff. "I d o n 't th in k so , Jo h n . I th in k w ith all th o se ch em icals an d th e stu ff y o u w ere ex p o sed to ... y o u w o u ld n 't b e h ere."
D efen d in g T h eir D ream
T h o u g h w o rkers h ave w o n ad d itio n al im p ro vem en ts o ver th e p ast tw o d ecad es, th e d o zen em p lo yees I sp o ke to all d escrib ed th e strikes sin ce
1989 p rim arily as d efen sive actio n s aim ed at sim p ly m ain tain in g w h at h ad b een w o n b efo re. T h at in clu d es ro b u st p en sio n s an d an affo rd ab le fam ily
health care plan for w orkers and retirees.
(R each ed b y p h o n e, B o ein g lab o r relatio n s sp o kesp erso n T im H ealy said th at b o th sid es sh are resp o n sib ility fo r th e freq u en cy o f strikes.)'
T h e B o ein g m ed ical co verag e p ays fo r p rescrip tio n m ed icin e fo r 15-year em p lo yee Jaso n R ed ru p 's step so n , w h o 's h ad a liver tran sp lan t.
W ith o u t B o ein g b en efits, R ed ru p said , "It w o u ld b an kru p t m e." T h en h e p au sed , co n tem p latin g w h at w o u ld h ap p en n ext. "H e'd b e d ead ."
B o b M erritt, a 32-year em p lo yee, d escrib ed ru sh in g h is d au g h ter to th e em erg en cy ro o m after sh e co llap sed o n th e vo lleyb all co u rt. A s h e
d ro ve, h e w atch ed h er fin g ers b all u p as sh e lay in a fetal p o sitio n in th e b ack seat. "T alk ab o u t scared ," h e says. "W e g o t h er in [th e E R ] an d I
flash ed m y h ealth card d am n rig h t I got that insurance." H e q u estio n ed w h eth er h is d au g h ter, w h o fu lly reco vered , w o u ld h ave g o tten ad eq u ate
treatm en t if sh e h ad n 't h ad ad eq u ate in su ran ce. "T h ere g o es yo u r w h o le life."
T h e strikes h ave also g iven w o rkers co n fid en ce th at th eir co n tract can b e en fo rced . P ellan d b elieves th at w ith o u t th e cred ib ility th e u n io n h as
estab lish ed th ro u g h strikin g , B o ein g w o u ld h ave fo u n d an excu se to fire h im . T w en ty years ag o , w o rkin g u n d er p ressu re o n a w in g lin e, P ellan d
slip p ed o n leakin g o il an d b ad ly sp rain ed h is th u m b . H is d o cto r sen t h im b ack to w o rk w ith in stru ctio n s n o t to g rasp w ith h is rig h t h an d fo r tw o
w eeks. W ith a m ix o f an g er an d em b arrassm en t, h e d escrib ed h is m an ag er an n o u n cin g at a m o rn in g crew m eetin g , "O h B rian , h e's g o t so m e p u ssy
resffictio n h e can 't d o h is jo b ." "T h at ch an g ed m e fo r life," said P ellan d . W ith o u t strikes, h e said , "th ey'd th ro w m e aw ay," an d th e u n io n w o u ld
lack the clout to stop them .
D ave S w an n , w h o w as h ired in 1989, says th e co n tract lan g u ag e an d clo u t w o n th ro u g h th e strikes created o p p o rtu n ities fo r h im to
advance at
B o ein g d esp ite m an ag em en t racism . G ro w in g u p , S w an n w as o n e o f th ree o r fo u r A frican -A m erican stu d en ts b u ssed in to a m ajo rity w h ite sch o o l
NLRB-FOIA-00008849
districtin W estSeattle.For years_

before the recentstrikes w on a new prom otions system ,m anagers looked athim "like I w as a ghost. -
A C h an ged M em b ersh ip
The strikes w ere transform ative experiences.For Jorgenson,the scariestw as in 1977,w hen he w as recently m arried to his firstw ife and
m aking house paym ents.H e says he w entinto the strike unsure "w hether I'm going to have a job or not." H e rem em bers m anagers sw erving their
cars tow ards picketing strikers on their w ay into w ork,and then taking photos ofpicketers from inside the plant.
Jorgenson joined a group calling itselfthe "EverettR aiders" thatw orked to discourage replacem entw orkers and keep the spirits ofthe other
strikers up.H e com pared going through a strike together to going through a w ar."Y ou're notreally going to deserteach other,and you're a lot
m ore w illing to endure the pain ofgoing through allofit.A nd itis painful." The percentage ofthe w orkforce on strike w entup during the course of
the strike rather than dow n.By the end,he felt"pretty pow erful," and w hen he w entback to w ork,co-w orkers told him he had helped give them the
strength to stay outon strike.
W ilson "Fergie" Ferguson,a m ilitary veteran w ho plays Santa atunion C hristm as parties,says going on strike for the firsttim e in 1977
"scared the shitoutofm e." But"anger trum ps fear every tim e.I'm scared untilyou piss m e off."
Pelland says ifhe had crossed the picketline,"a partofm e w ould have died,and I w ouldn'tbe w ho I am ." H aving been guided through the
1989 strike by the veterans,by the tim e ofthe 2008 strike Pelland w as seeking outnew er em ployees on the picketline."C an I talk to you about
how the com pany bluffs?" he w ould ask them ."W e hold a straightflush and the com pany's alw ays bluffing."
Severalw orkers m entioned they w ere struck by the degree ofsupportfrom the com m unity.Tw enty-five-year em ployee D iana Loggins
w as
m oved in 1989 w hen her m ailm an,seeing the strike stickers on her car,w ould say,"H ang in there,you're on strike for us." Jorgenson says Boeing
provides m ostofthe m iddle-class jobs in PugetSound.Boeing w orkers m ake significantcontributions to the localtax base and the dem and
for
localbusinesses.The other m ajor private em ployer in the area is M icrosoft,w hose educationalrequirem ents leave its jobs outofreach for m any.
A H istory of R etaliation
N one ofthe dozen w orkers I m etw ith doubted thatBoeing w as retaliating for PugetSound strikes by locating production ofits new
D ream liner line in South C arolina.For these w orkers,threats to shiftproduction are m ore ofthe sam e.W hat's new is thatthis tim e,Boeing is
actually m aking good on its threatto build com m ercialairplanes outside ofPugetSound.
Severalw orkers said they've heard m anagers threaten to shutdow n or transfer production during pastcontractfights.Pelland says prior to
"every strike" he's heard m anagers threaten to m ove lines ofairplanes outofstate.H e says friends ofhis in m anagem enttold him they w ere
specifically instructed to w arn w orkers that"they could take their business som ew here else." M errittsays co-w orkers inform ed him thatm anagers
told them ,"W e're pretty sick ofthis you keep striking,w e'llm ove your jobs."
D uring the 2002 contractfight,Jorgenson w as pulled into a m eeting w hee'e m anagers tried to convince him and other shop stew ards to support
the com pany's offer.Jorgenson says a m anager told them thatifthe w orkers voted to strike,a Sonic C ruiser line .planned for Everettw ould be built
som ew here else instead.Jorgenson and other stew ards did their bestanyw ay to round up the tw o-thirds supportthe union requires to authorize a
strike.Butw ith the airline industry stillrecovering from 9/11,they felljustshort.Thatm eantm anagem ent's finaloffer w as accepted,including
w eakened subcontracting protections and language thatprevented the union from filing charges over pastthreats.Fifteen-year em ployee Paul
V eltkam p thinks thatafter m anagers "m anaged to scare justenough people" to vote againststriking in 2002,they convinced them selves they w ere
"vote-counting w izards" w ho could getw orkers to agree to m ore concessions in subsequentcontracts.Butafter Boeing lostthe 2005 and 2008
strikes,says V eltkam p,now the com pany is "trying som ething else,a differentkind ofthreat."
Som e w orkers said their co-w orkers have been intim idated by m anagers telling reporters thatBoeing denied PugetSound the second line of
airliners because ofstrikes.V eltkam p,a shop stew ard,says he w as approached by em ployees holding up new spapers and telling him thatin
the
2012 contractnegotiations "w e're justgoing to have to give them w hatthey w ant." H ow ever,he says,"W e don'tstay scared for long."
Boeing spokesperson H ealy said the lesson PugetSound em ployees should take from the choice ofSouth C arolina is that"w e need to be
com petitive," and added thatBoeing w ould "talk to our unionized em ployees here" aboutpaying a greater share ofhealth care costs in their next
contract.
D ifferen t D ream s
M achinists U nion m em bers atBoeing are defending a dream too few A m erican w orkers have in place or see in reach:W ork hard,and don't
lie paycheck to paycheck.G etsick,and don'tw orry w hether you can afford a doctor's visit.Putin enough decades,and expecta com fortable
retirem ent.They didn'tjustw in thatdream through the beneficence oftheir bosses or the w orthiness oftheir w ork (though the particulars ofthe
industry m ake strikers less vulnerable to perm anentreplacem ent).Itw as birthed and m aintained through strikes.Four tim es over the past22 years,
they held together and outlasted the com pany.
D ave Sw ann proudly relates thathis great-grandfather w as a porter,"one ofthe highest-paid jobs an A frican-A m erican could have back in
those days ...Everybody cam e to their house to eat,because he w as in the union and they m ade good m oney." H is grandfather w as a longshorem an
and his father,like him ,w as a M achinists m em ber atBoeing."I feelthreatened," he says,because ifhis sons can'tland their dream jobs of
m oviem aker and sportscaster,he w ants union jobs atBoeing to be there for their w hole lives."It's a hurting feeling,because you w antto see your
kids do better than you."
Boeing has its ow n dream s.Take its tour and you'llhear abouta future offaster,sm oother production.W hen allthe pieces are in place.
m y
tour guide said,parts w illarrive from severalsources and becom e a D ream liner in three days. -M ostofthe people w ho w illride on this plane. - a
pre-tour video brags,"haven'tbeen born yet."
Bob M errittdescribes the attitude he gets now from the com pany:"W e w antour airplanes to be plug and play,w e w antour w orkers to be plug
and play." Pelland says Boeing is trying to becom e "a Lego building com pany" m ore focused on assem bling parts than creating them ."They're
NLRB-FOIA-00008850
sending a m essage to their custom ers and their shareholders that they're done w ith us," said R edrup. H e says B oeing is trying "to break our
stranglehold on their production system " just as G eneral M otors did to the U A W half a century ago. "T hey've got to deal w ith the w orkers, and
they don't like that. If they can't housebreak us, they gotta find a w ay to get aw ay from us."
N ow B oeing is at the center of a national controversy over how robust the right to strike should be. T he w orkers I spoke to w ere divided over
w hether the com pany had arrogantly stum bled into legal danger or intentionally set out to see w hat they could get aw ay w ith. It's good to see that,
under .the O bam a-era labor board, publicly declaring you are denying production of a line of airplanes to a group of w orkers because they keep
going on strike at least earns you a labor board com plaint (O bam a has been at pains to keep his distance from the case).
R eached by phone, B oeing governm ent operations spokesperson T im N eale m aintained that m anagem ent has "been honest about the fact that
strikes have harm ed the com pany and that w e as a com pany very m uch are looking for production stability," but insisted B oeing hasn't broken the
law . Its R epublican defenders claim that the com plaint signifies a shift tow ard S oviet-style central planning or C hicago-style m achinations. L int it's
the prospect of an acquittal or a m anagem ent-friendly settlem ent that w ould signal a further departure from the stated purpose and prom ise of
the N ational L abor R elations A ct, w hich set forth as its intent the prom otion of collective bargaining and enshrined a right to collective action
w ithout threat of retaliation.
A nd if B oeing does pay a heavy price for telling its em ployees that their collective action cost them an expansion of their plant, it w on't take a
high-priced anti-union consultant to interpret the lesson for other com panies: D on't be so obvious. A ll too often, em ployers get aw ay w ith anti-
union retaliation w hen they don't go bragging about it in the new spaper.
S o w hatever the result, the B oeing case is less a story about the potency of current labor law than about the pow er of the strike on the onQ hand
and the threat of retaliation on the other. It's the story of w orkers w ho have refused to believe that they should cede a hard-w on package of m iddle-
class w ages and w orkplace protections in the face of a m ajor com pany's m ulti-year effort to persuade or intim idate them into backing dow n. N ow ,
after decades during w hich P uget S ound has been the only place B oeing assem bles com m ercial aircraft, w orkers are right to recognize that the
pow er to m ove w ork elsew here has becom e a pow erful w eapon in m anagem ent's arsenal.
B oeing w orkers expect to have to strike every few years until they retire. O ne can im agine new attacks from B oeing spurring them to level
-age
their solidarity in other w ays as w ell, be it international coordination, secondary picketing, or directing their political m obilization (w hich has
successfully helped the com pany w in tax breaks) tow ards dem anding that the U .S . governm ent, a m ajor B oeing custom er, insist on better behavior.
A s B oeing and the M achinists both look to the future, their struggle across decades show s both the enduring pow er of collective action and the still-
unm et challenge that capital m obility poses for the labor m ovem ent.
S uccessive generations of B oeing w orkers have figured out that it's better to shape the future than to passively accept it. M eanw hile, B oeing
and its peers are w orking to foist their ow n dream s on the rest of us som etim es loudly, often not. M y "F uture of F light" tour guide boasted about
the w ays the D ream liner represents a new achievem ent in illusion. S cientific innovations in m aterials and lighting m ean that passengers w on't reel
the altitude, the hum idity, or the tim e difference as B oeing's airplane takes them som ew here new . "B y the tim e you get there," he said, "w e can
trick your body to m ake you think you've.already been there a long tim e." It w as easy to forget he w as referring to an airplane.
JO S H E ID E LS O N is a freelance w riter based in P hiladelphia. H e received his M A in politicalscience from Y ale and w orked as a union organi:er for five years. H is w ,'I'c,,e is
iosheidelson.com , and he can be reached by e-m ailatjeidelson-at-gm ail-dot-coin.
D id you fin d th is article u sefu l? P lease con sid er su p p ortin g ou r w ork b y d on atin g or su b scrib in g.
Eft
NLRB-FOIA-00008851
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Friday, May 28, 2010 1:10 PM
Karsh, Aaron; Sophir, Jayme
Boeing Co.
I just spoke with Eric Moskowitz and Special Lit is taking the lead on this case.
Exemption 5
He will keep us updated.
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008852
Recipient
Read
Karsh, Aaron
Read: 5/28/2010 1:30 PM
Sophir, Jayme
Deleted: 6/14/2010 11:05 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00008853
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Friday, May 28, 2010 1:22 PM
Szapiro, Miriam; Karsh, Aaron; Sophir, Jayme
RE: Boeing Co.
Its on deferral.
From: Szapiro, Miriam
To: Karsh, Aaron; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: Boeing Co.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008854
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Karsh, Aaron
Friday, May 28, 2010 1:23 PM
Szapiro, Miriam; Sophir, Jayme
RE: Boeing Co.
awaiting the ER's response, through S Lit.
To: Szapiro, Miriam; Karsh, Aaron; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: Boeing Co.
Its on deferral.
Subject: Boeing Co.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008855
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
Friday, May 28, 2010 2:20 PM
Karsh, Aaron; Szapiro, Miriam
FW : Boeing Co.
To: Sophir, Jayme
No Close it out after consultation with special lit
From: Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW: Boeing Co.
Should we continue to have this logged in as an Advice case?
Its on deferral.
Subject: Boeing Co.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008856
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
W ednesday, June 02, 2010 9:13 AM
Allen, Constance
Sophir, Jayme; Kearney, Barry J.; Karsh, Aaron
FW : Boeing Co., 19-CA-32431
Constance, please close Boeing Co. in Advice, effective May 28, at which date Special Litigation informed us that it had
assumed responsibility for the case.
To: Sophir, Jayme
From: Sophir, Jayme
Its on deferral.
Subject: Boeing Co.
Exemption 5
e will keep us updated.
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008857
Read
Recipient
Allen, Constance
Read: 6/3/2010 8:20 AM
Sophir, Jayme
Read: 6/2/2010 9:14 AM
Kearney, Barry J.
Read: 6/2/2010 9:55 AM
Karsh, Aaron
Read: 6/2/2010 9:17 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00008858
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Karsh, Aaron
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: Boeing Co., 19-CA-32431
Could you also check up within a day to see that the case has closed? Thanks.
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 9:13 AM
To: Allen, Constance
Cc: Sophir, Jayme; Kearney, Barry J.; Karsh, Aaron
Subject: FW: Boeing Co., 19-CA-32431
Constance, please close Boeing Co. in Advice, effective May 28, at which date Special Litigation informed us that it had
assumed responsibility for the case.
To: Sophir, Jayme
From: Sophir, Jayme
Its on deferral.
Subject: Boeing Co.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008859
NLRB-FOIA-00008860
Microsoft Outlook
Szapiro, Miriam
W ednesday, October 13, 2010 4:56 PM
W illen, Debra L
RE: Boeing memo
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Deb, did you pass this to Barry yet? if not, it would be better to let me look at it
first, especially given
Exemption 5
n any event, I'm going to look at it now and we can talk about it tomorrow. I
admit that
Exemption 5
________________________________________
From: Willen, Debra L
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 3:19 PM
To: Bush, Lynn
Cc: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing memo
Hi Lynn --
Please substitute the attached version of the Boeing GC memo for what is there now on the H
drive at
H:ADV.19-CA-32431.GCAgenda.Boeing.dlw
Thanks!!
NLRB-FOIA-00008861
Microsoft Outlook
W illen, Debra L
W ednesday, October 13, 2010 6:46 PM
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: Boeing memo
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
No, I did not pass it to Barry.
At about 4:30 I called and asked him if he wanted it for the bus ride home.
it.
He didn't want
He said we were fine now and he would look at it after you had a chance to see it.
wants to get it to the GC by the end of the day tomorrow.
He
I'll see you in the morning.
________________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: Boeing memo
Hi Deb, did you pass this to Barry yet? if not, it would be better to let me look at it
first, especially given
Exemption 5
n any event, I'm going to look at it now and we can talk about it tomorrow. I
admit that
Exemption 5
________________________________________
To: Bush, Lynn
Cc: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing memo
Hi Lynn --
Please substitute the attached version of the Boeing GC memo for what is there now on the H
drive at
H:ADV.19-CA-32431.GCAgenda.Boeing.dlw
Thanks!!
NLRB-FOIA-00008862
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Szapiro, Miriam
W ednesday, October 20, 2010 10:19 AM
W illen, Debra L
boeing
ADV.19-CA-32431.Response.Boeing.dlw.doc
Hi Deb, I made a few edits in track changes; mainly it was

But if you dont think its an
Exemption 5
improvement, let me know, or just fix it on the draft. I also changed court to lower cap because we usually save the cap for
the S.Ct., but if you think thats wrong (a la Blue Book etc), go ahead and return to caps.
NLRB-FOIA-00008863
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008864
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008865
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008866
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008867
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008868
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008869
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008870
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008871
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008872
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008873
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008874
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008875
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008876
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008877
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008878
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008879
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008880
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008881
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008882
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008883
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008884
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008885
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008886
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008887
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008888
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008889
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008890
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008891
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008892
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008893
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008894
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008895
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008896
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008897
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008898
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008899
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008900
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008901
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008902
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008903
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008904
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008905
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008906
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008907
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008908
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008909
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008910
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008911
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008912
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008913
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008914
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
W ednesday, October 20, 2010 10:46 AM
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: boeing
Miriam --
These changes all look fine to me.
You can go ahead and "accept" them for me and pass to Barry.
Thanks, Deb
________________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 10:19 AM
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: boeing
Hi Deb, I made a few edits in track changes; mainly it was

Exemption 5
But if you dont think its an improvement, let me
know, or just fix it on the draft. I also changed court to lower cap because we usually save
the cap for the S.Ct., but if you think thats wrong (a la Blue Book etc), go ahead and
return to caps.
NLRB-FOIA-00008915
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:52 PM
W illen, Debra L
RE: draft
Great do you want to email it to Barry and tell him you also left a hard copy in his mailbox? Hes telecommuting.
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:35 PM
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: draft
Okay Ive accepted everything, deleted comments, and

Ex. 5 deliberative strategy on draft
Shall I print out for Barry and/or e-mail it to him since he is telecommuting today?
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: draft
Hi, I accepted almost everything there was to accept, mad a couple more possible changes, so check and make sure they
work. (2 were at comment areas).
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008916
Recipient
Read
Willen, Debra L
Read: 1/27/2011 2:55 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00008917
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:56 PM
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: draft
Will do.
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: draft
Great do you want to email it to Barry and tell him you also left a hard copy in his mailbox? Hes telecommuting.
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: draft
Okay Ive accepted everything, deleted comments,

Exemption 5
Shall I print out for Barry and/or e-mail it to him since he is telecommuting today?
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: draft
Hi, I accepted almost everything there was to accept, mad a couple more possible changes, so check and make sure they
work. (2 were at comment areas).
NLRB-FOIA-00008918
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: Boeing Co.
Thanks
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Miriam Szapiro
Supervisory attorney
202-273-0998
Miriam.Szapiro@nlrb.gov
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:59 PM
Cc: Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Katz, Judy; Szapiro, Miriam; Omberg, Bob;
Baniszewski, Joseph
Subject: Boeing Co.
I am attaching our Fact Sheet and the latest version of our Advice Memorandum
Exemption 5
Please let me know if there is anything else you need.
Thanks,
Deb Willen
NLRB-FOIA-00008919
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
CBS evening news
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7368778n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
Sandy saw this last night and said it was a fairly balanced report on the Boeing case. Im having trouble watching it here.
NLRB-FOIA-00008920
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
RE: CBS evening news
So far not at all balanced. Im feeling sick. Maybe it will improve
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: CBS evening news
NLRB-FOIA-00008921
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
Okay, a little better; phew
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008922
Recipient
Read
Willen, Debra L
Read: 6/8/2011 9:44 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00008923
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam
Yeah I managed to see it (video kept pausing and then restarting). It was okay, not great. Wished they had featured an
individual W ashington state employee as well as the South Carolina woman.
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: CBS evening news
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00008924
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
Yeah, exactly. They began and ended w/ that woman; also, as usual, they made it sound like these were all new jobs (not
that people already were working on them in Washington would no longer be doing them).. So it became union vs.
employees.
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
To: Szapiro, Miriam
To: Willen, Debra L
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-00008925
Recipient
Read
Willen, Debra L
Read: 6/8/2011 9:51 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00008926
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam
Well they didnt consult us that was the problem.
Anyway, it could have been much worse.
To: Willen, Debra L
Yeah, exactly. They began and ended w/ that woman; also, as usual, they made it sound like these were all new jobs (not
that people already were working on them in Washington would no longer be doing them).. So it became union vs.
employees.
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
To: Szapiro, Miriam
To: Willen, Debra L
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00008927
1099 IL O ST R E E T N W
N A
O N A I. IA I:011
w w w .n lrb .g o v
IO N 'S IS O A llp
M ay 9,2011
100 N R iversid e M C 5003-6027
C h icag o , IL 60606-1596
D ear M r.Luttig:
R e: T h e B o ein g C o m p an y
C ase 19-C A -32431
This is in response to your M ay 3 letter to m e concerning the above
captioned case.
statem ents in the press about this m atter. N eedless to say, I don't agree w ith
your contentions. There have been num erous conversations betw een m y office
this case so that each party is aw are of the other's position. The appropriate
assertions-is through-the -developm ent'of an eviduntialyfe -dtd orf

hich an
B oard and ultim ately the C ourts. Finally, w hile our earlier efforts to resolve this
m atter w ere unsuccessful, I still rem ain open to a resolution betw een the parties.
S in celel
Lafe/E . Solom on
NLRB-FOIA-00008928
0 0
.. II
d o r G ra h a m P re s s R e le a s e s
act: M eghan H ughes (202-224-5972) or K evin B ishop (864-250-1417)
: 04/20/2011
G ra h a m o n N L R B C o m p la in t a g a in s t B o e in g
SH IN G T O N U .S . S enator Lindsey G raham (R -S outh C arolina) today m ade this statem ent on the N ationalLabor R elations B oard
R B ) com plaint against B oeing.
s is one of the w orst exam ples of unelected bureaucrats doing the bidding of specialinterest groups that I've ever seen. In this cas
N LR B is doing the bidding of the unions at great cost to S outh C arolina and our nation's econom y.
lakes perfect sense for a w orld-class com pany like B oeing to diversify their production capabilities. B oeing m ade a solid business
sion in com ing to S outh C arolina, and w e w elcom e them w ith open arm s. T hey could have gone anyw here, but they knew that S ol
A na w as a great place to do business. T heir decision to open their new facility in N orth C harleston w illpay dividends for the
ipany, its w orkers, and our state for m any years to com e. It's a decision that w illstand the test of tim e.
uccessful, the N LR B com plaint w ould allow unions to hold a virtual'veto'over business decisions. Left to their ow n devices, the N L
Id routinely punish right-to-w ork states that value and prom ote their pro-business clim ates. T he current m akeup of the N LR B B ow l
been skew ed against business. T his action w illnot be allow ed to stand.
)uld be surprised if any court recognized the legitim acy of this com plaint. It's pretty easy to see that at its heart, this is about union
.ics. A s S enator, I w illdo everything in m y pow er, including introducing legislation cutting off funding for this w ild goose chase, to
E
N LR B 's frivolous com plaint."
tt#
Y ou w illneed to have R ealO ne P layer installed on your com puter to be able to listen or w atch the clips above. R ealO ne P layer is free
softw are that lets you play audio and video files. D ow nload R ealO ne P layer
NLRB-FOIA-00008929
U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A
B E F O R E T H E N A T IO N A L L A B O R R E L A T IO N S B O A R D
R E G IO N 19
T H E B O E IN G C O M P A N Y
and
C ase 19-C A -32431
IN T E R N A T IO N A L A S S O C IA T IO N O F
M A C H IN IS T S A N D A E R O S P A C E W O R K E R S
Lodge N o. 751 ("Local 751" or the "U nion"), affiliated w ith International A ssociation of
Th e B oein g C om pany ("R espond ent" or "B o eing"), h as b een engaging in unfair labor
practices as set forth in the N ational Labor R elations A ct (the "A ct"), 29 U .S .C . 151 et
seq.
B a s e d th e re o n , th e A c tin g G e n e ra l C o u n s e l o f th e N a tio n a l L a b o r
R elations B oard (the "B oard"), by the undersigned, pursuant to 10(b) of the A ct and
102.15 o f th e B o ard 's R u les an d R eg u latio n s, issu es th is C o m p lain t an d N o tice o f
1.
The C harge w as filed by the U nion on M arch 26, 2010, and w as served on
R espondent by regular m ailon or about M arch 29, 2010.
NLRB-FOIA-00008930
2.
(a)
R espondent,a S tate of D elaw are corporation w ith its headquarters
areas.
(b )
(c)
(d )
com m erce w ithin the m eaning of 2(2),(6) and (7) of the A ct.
3.
The Union is, and has been at all m aterial tim es, a labor organization
4.
-2 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008931
behalfof R espondent:
and C EO of Integrated D efense System s (until
late A ugust 2009); C EO ,B oeing C om m ercial
A irplanes (as of late A ugust 2009)
ScottC arson
Executive Vice President,B oeing; C EO ,B oeing
R ay C onner
Vice President and G eneralM anager of Supply
C hain M anagem ent and O perations,B oeing
Scott Fancher
Vice President and G eneralM anager of the 787
Program
Fred K iga
Vice President,G overnm ent and C om m unity
R elations
D oug K ight
Jim M cN em ey
Jim Proulx
B oeing spokesm an
P at S hanahan
Vice President and G eneralM anager of
A irplane Program s
Jim A lbaugh
G en e W o lo sh yn
5.
(a)
O a, allproduction and m aintenance em ployees in W ashington S tate,constitute a unit
A ct (the "Puget Sound Unit").
(b )
-3 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008932
alia, allproduction and m aintenance em ployees in the P ortland,O regon area,constitute
of the A ct (the "Portland Unit").
(c)
S ince at least 1975 and at allm aterialtim es,the IA M has been the
S eptem ber 8,2012.
(d )
6.
th e U n it b ecau se em p lo yees h ad stru ck an d R esp o n d en t th reaten ed o r im p lied ly
threatened that the Unit w ould lose additionalw ork in the event of future strikes:
(a) O cto ber 21, 2009, by M cN erney in a quarterly earnings conference
exten d ed statem en t reg ard in g "d iversifyin g [R esp o n d en t's] lab o r p o o l an d lab o r
relationship," and m oving the 787 D ream liner w ork to S outh C arolina due to "strikes
happening every three to four years in P uget S ound."
-4 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008933
(b )
O ctober 28, 2009, based on its O ctober 28, 2009, m em orandum
am ong other things,that its decision to locate the second 787 D ream liner line in S outh
(c)
D ecem ber 7,2009,by C onner and P roulx in an article appearing in
the Seattle Tim es,attributed R espondent's 787 D ream liner production decision to use a
"dual-sourcing" system and to contract w ith separate suppliers for the S outh C arolina
line to past Unitstrikes.
(d )
S ound B usiness Journal,attributed R espondent's 787 D ream liner production decision
to use a "dual-sourcing" system and to contract w ith separate suppliers for the S outh
C arolina line to past Unit strikes.
(e)
M arch 2,2010,by A lbaugh in a video-taped interview w ith a S eattle
w ork opportunities because of such strikes.
7.
(a)
but no later than O ctober 28, 2009, R espondent decided to transfer its second 787
-5 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008934
(b )
7(a) because the Unit em ployees assisted and/O r supported the Union by, inter alia,
an d /o r o th er em p lo yees fro m en g ag in g in th ese o r o th er u n io n an d /o r p ro tected ,
(c)
8.
(a)
In or about O ctober 2009, on a date better know n to R espondent,
(b )
8(a) because the U nit em ployees assisted and/or supported the Union by, inter O a,
(c)
-6 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008935
9.
B y the conduct described above in paragraph 6, R espondent has been
interfering w ith, restraining , and co ercing em ployees in the exercise o f th e righ ts
10.
11.
12.
A s part of the rem edy for the unfair labor practices alleged herein, the
A ctin g G en eral C o u n sel seeks an O rd er req u irin g eith er th at o n e o f th e h ig h level
B oeing official, an y notice that issu es in this m atter, an d requirin g R espond ent to
13.
(a)
-7 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008936
in the S tate of W ashington,utilizing supply lines m aintained by the Unit in the S eattle,
(b)
S outh C arolina,facility.
R esp o n d en t is n o tified th at, p u rsu an t to 102.20 an d 102.21 o f th e
m ust be received b y th is office on or b efore M ay 4, 2011, or P ostm ark ed on or
before M ay 3, 2011. Unless filed electronically in a pdf form at,R espondent should file
A n answ er m ay also be filed electronically by using the E -Filing system on
the A gency's w ebsite. In order to file an answ er electronically, access the A gency's
w ebsite at w w w .nlrb.00v, click o n F ile C ase D o cu m en ts, en ter th e N L R B C ase
N um ber, and follow the detailed instructions. The responsibility for the receipt and
usability of the answ er rests exclusively upon the sender. Unless notification on the
A g en cy's w elisite in fo rm s u sers th at th e A g en cy's E -F ilin g system is o fficially
-8 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008937

R egional O ffice by traditional m eans w ithin three (3) business days after the date of
electronic filing.
P L E A S E T A K E N O T IC E T H A T o n th e 14th d ay o f Ju n e, 2011, at 9:00
a.m ., in J am e s C . S an d H ea rin g R o o m , 2 96 6 Ja ck so n F ed eral B u ild in g , 9 15
S eco n d A ven u e, S eattle, W ash in g to n , an d o n co n secu tive d ays th ereafter u n til
concluded, a hearing w ill be conducted before an A dm inistrative .L aw Ju d g e o f th e
-9 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008938
th is co m p lain t. T h e p ro ced u res to b e fo llo w ed at th e h earin g are d escrib ed in th e
D A TE D at S eattle,W ashington,this 20 th day of A pril,2011.
915 S econd A venue
-1 0 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008939
=A.
B ill K ilberg
Partner
w kilberg@ gib SO nd {A In i.C ,)M

T : +1202.955.8573
F : +1202.530.9559
W ashington,D .C .O ffice
1050 C onnecticut A venue,N .W .
U SA
W illiam J.K ilberg is a Partner w ith G ibson,D unn & C rutcher.H e is a m em ber of the E xecutive C om m ittee
of the Firm ,has served on the Firm 's five-m em ber M anagem ent C om m ittee (2002-2009),and has served as
Partner-in-C harge of the W ashington office (1990-1995).H e is the m ost senior partner in the L abor &
E m ploym ent L aw Practice G roup.
M r.K ilberg counsels and represents clients in allaspects of em ployee relations,labor relations,and
em ployee com pensation and benefits.H e has appeared num erous tim es in trialcourts on behalf of
em ployers in class and collective actions under the m yriad of em ploym ent law s,including E R ISA ,T itle V II of
the C ivilR ights A ct,and the-Fair L abor Standards A ct.H e has argued m any significant m atters before eight
U nited States C ourts of A ppeals and has successfully argued tw o cases before the Suprem e C ourt, Egelhoff v.
Egelhoff,and M urphy v.U PS.

M r.K ilberg's practice also includes advocacy before C ongressional
com m ittees,the D epartm ents of L abor,Justice,and the T reasury,the E E O C ,the IR S,the N L R B,and the
PBG C .
In 1973,M r.K ilberg w as appointed by the President and confirm ed by the Senate as the Solicitor for the U .S.
D epartm ent of L abor,a position he held until1977.H e also has served as A ssociate Solicitor of L abor for
L abor R elations and C ivilR ights,G eneralC ounselof the FederalM ediation and C onciliation Service,and as
a W hite H ouse Fellow and SpecialA ssistant to Secretary of L abor G eorge P.Shultz.A t the tim e of his
appointm ent as Solicitor of L abor,M r.K ilberg w as the youngest person ever to be appointed to a sub-
C abinet post in the U nited States governm ent.M r.K ilberg w as President of the W hite H ouse Fellow s
A ssociation in 1982-83,and w as appointed by President R eagan in 1982 to the C om m ission on W hite H ouse
Fellow ships.
M r.K ilberg w as elected a Fellow in the charter classes of the C ollege of L abor and E m ploym ent L aw yers,and
the A m erican C ollege of E m ployee Benefits C ounsel.H e is a m em ber of the Board of the C ollege of L abor
and E m ploym ent L aw yers,the A dvisory Board of the A m erican E m ploym ent L aw C ouncil,the L egal
A dvisory C ouncilof the N ationalL egalC enter for the Public Interest,and of the E R ISA R oundtable.H e
serves as an O fficer of the L abor and E m ploym ent C om m ittee of the Federalist Society.
In June 2 0 1 0 , M r.K ilberg w as nam ed am ong the loo M ost Pow erfulE m ploym ent A ttorneys in the nation by
H um an R esource Executive m agazine and Latvdragon.Latvdragon

has also nam ed M r.K ilberg as one of
the 500 leading law yers in the nation,describing him as "the labor law yer of choice for corporate A m erica,"
and "one of the m ost esteem ed em ploym ent law yers in the land."
C ham bers & Partners U SA -A m erica's
Leading Law yers for B usiness

has listed M r.K ilberg as a leading law yer in E R ISA L itigation nationw ide and
in E m ployee Benefits & E xecutive C om pensation and L abor and E m ploym ent in the D istrict of C olum bia.In
2009, W ashingtonian M agazine nam ed M r.K ilberg as one of the T op L aw yers in L abor and E m ploym ent.
H e w as identified as the Best E m ploym ent L itigator in the W ashington-m etropolitan area in 2005 by the
W ashington B usiness Journal and as one of 100 "superlaw yers" by the W ashington Post.LegalTim es
has
characterized M r.K ilberg as one of the "T w elve L eading L abor & E m ploym ent L itigators in the D .C .A rea".
NLRB-FOIA-00008940
M r.K ilberg served as Editor-in-C hief of the Em ployee R elations Law Journal
from 1986 to 2003.H e has
published m any articles on em ploym ent and benefits issues,and often appears as a speaker on em ploym ent
and em ployee benefits issues atB ar and other professionalevents.H e is co-author of the m onographs "Saga
of R eform :R egulation of W orker O vertim e," published by the N ationalLegalC enter for the Public Interest
and "T he B attle O ver M andated B enefits," published by the H R Policy A ssociation.
H e is co-author of the
books "E m ployer's R ights and R esponsibilities:L egalD ilem m as in the C hanging W orkplace," and "Pitfalls
for Japanese E m ployers in the U nited States," published in Japanese and the chapter on E R ISA litigation in
the PL I treatise, Securities Litigation.

H e is the recipientof a num ber of aw ards,am ong them the L eague of
U nited Latin A m erican C itizens (LU LA C ) A w ard for O utstanding Service to the Spanish-speaking
com m unity,the D .C .C ham ber of C om m erce A rthur Flem m ing A w ard for E xceptionalPublic Service,and the
Schoolof Industrialand L abor R elations atC ornellU niversity Judge W illiam B .G roatA lum niA w ard for
O utstanding C ontributions to the Field of Industrial& L abor R elations.In 2007 M r.K ilberg delivered the
inauguralD onald S.Shire L ecture atthe U nited States D epartm entof L abor.
M r.K ilberg graduated in 1966 from C ornellU niversity,w hich he attended on a scholarship from L ocal3,
InternationalB rotherhood of E lectricalW orkers,and received his law degree in 1969 from H arvard L aw
School.
P au l B lan k en stein
T :+1 202.955.8693
F: +1202.530.9532
1050 C onnecticutA venue,N .W .
U SA
Paul B lankenstein is of counsel in the W ashington,D .C .office of G ibson,D unn & C rutcher,w here his
practice focuses on com plex com m ercial litigation,including cases involving E m ployee R etirem ent Incom e
Security A ct(E R ISA ),insurance,securities law issues and financialinstitution m atters.
M r. B lankenstein has handled num erous em ploym ent benefit cases, ranging from potential claim s of
w ithdraw al liability under the M ultiem ployer Pension Protection A ct,to breach of fiduciary duty cases,
E R ISA preem ption cases,as w ell as cases involving benefit claim s.M r.B lankenstein w as part of the team
that successfully challenged the M aryland and Suffolk C ounty, N .Y . health benefit law s on E R ISA
preem ption grounds.H e has been involved w ith 401(k) stock drop and excessive fee cases.H e w as a key
m em ber of the team that successfully defended a m ajor financial m anagem ent and advisory com pany in the
W orldcom ER ISA
case and in the R C N ER ISA Litigation.
In addition, M r. B lankenstein played an
im portantrole in achieving a favorable settlem entfor C incinnatiB ellInc.in the In re B roadw ing Inc.ER ISA
Litigation.
C urrently, he is representing the C om puter Services C orporation, the various officers and
directors of K B H om e,the B oeing C orporation and the Janus C apital G roup in the E R ISA track of the
In re
M utualF unds Litigation

in various E R ISA cases.H e has also represented the form er C E O of a leading
branded retailer and w holesaler of high-quality doughnuts, in a recently settled E R M A 401(k) case.
M r.B lankenstein w as ranked as one of the top E R ISA litigation attorneys in the nation by Cham bers U SA
H e has also been recognized as one of the best E R ISA litigation law yers in the countryby the
Best
Law yers in A m erica

2 0 1 1 publication.B efore joining G ibson,D unn & C rutcher in 1985,M r.B lankenstein
served for 12 years in the C ivilD ivision of the D epartm entof Justice as both a T rialand A ppellate A ttorney.
In those capacities,he handled m any significant cases involving governm ent regulatory program s.A s the
C ivil D ivision's A ppellate L itigation C ounsel,M r.B lankenstein w as personally responsible for handling the
m ostsignificantand com plex appellate cases.
2010.
M r. B lankenstein received his undergraduate degree from the C ity C ollege of N ew Y ork in 1969, and
graduated cum laude in 1973 from B rooklyn Law School,w here he w as an Editor of the Law R eview
NLRB-FOIA-00008941
M att M cG ill
Partner
m m egiii@ gibE,ondurin.coin
T : +1202.887.3680
F: +1 202.530.9662
1050 C onnecticut A venue,N .W .W ashington,D C 20036-5306
M atthew D .M cG illis a partner in the W ashington,D .C .office ofG ibson,D unn & C rutcher.H e practices in
the firm 's Litigation D epartm entand its A ppellate and C onstitutionalLaw and IntellectualProperty practice
groups.
M r.M cG illrecently w as nam ed a national R ising Star by Law 360, w hich identified him as one of 10
appellate law yers under 40 to w atch.In the five years since he joined the firm ,he has participated in
thirteen cases before the Suprem e C ourt of the U nited States,drafting the w inning briefs in ten of those
cases.T hose ten Suprem e C ourt victories,w hich span a w ide range of substantive areas of law ,include
severalofthe biggestcom e-from -behind legalvictories for businesses ofthe lastseveralyears:
C itizens U nited v.F ederalElection C om m ission (2010)

H ailed by the N ew York Tim es as
a "doctrinal
earthquake," this decision overruled tw o Suprem e C ourt precedents and established the First A m endm ent
right of corporations to spend generaltreasury funds on speech activities to influence the outcom es of
elections.
C oeur A laska,Inc.v.SoutheastA laska C onservation C ouncil(2009)

A fter persuading the Suprem e C ourt
to take up the case over the opposition of both environm entalists and the Solicitor G eneral,M r.M cG ill's
briefs convinced the Suprem e C ourt to reverse a N inth C ircuit decision that invalidated a C lean W ater A ct
criticalperm it and jeopardized m ine operator C oeur A laska's $330,000,000 investm ent in an A laskan gold
m ine.
R iegelv.M edtronic,Inc.
(2008) T his decision,w hich,as the N ew York Tim es
reported,has had "huge
im plications for the health care-technology industry," held thatfederallaw preem pts m any state-law product
liability claim s against m edicaldevices m anufacturers,foreclosing scores of products liability cases across
the country.
M icrosoftCorporation v.AT& T Corp.(2007)

This case reversed a FederalC ircuitdecision thathad vastly
increased certain defendants'dam ages exposure in patent infringem ent cases by extending U .S.patent law
to reach softw are developers'foreign sales.T he victory, N ew York Tim es observed,has "save[d][M icrosoft]
billions ofdollars."
M r.M cG illalso has filed num erous am icus curiae briefs on behalfofclients in cases raising im portantissues
of patent law such as B ilskiv.K appos,K SR Internationalv.T eleflex,and eB ay v.M ercExchange.
O utside the Suprem e C ourt,M r.M cG ill's practice focuses on cases involving noveland com plex questions of
federallaw .For exam ple,M r.M cG illcurrently represents the plaintiffs in

Perry v.Schw arzenegger,
a
constitutionalchallenge to C alifornia's Proposition 8,w hich prohibits sam e-sex couples from m arrying.In
the patentarea,M r.M cG illcurrently advises M icrosoftin tw o appeals involving nine-figure verdicts against
M icrosoft: U niloc U SA v.M icrosoft and i4iL.P.v.M icrosoft.
M r.M cG illalso m aintains an active pro bono practice.M ost recently,he briefed and argued a case in the
Suprem e C ourtofV irginia on behalfofthe adoptive fam ily ofa 4-year-old girland w on a unanim ous ruling
affirm ing the adoption.
NLRB-FOIA-00008942
Prior to joining G ibson D unn,M r.M cG illserved as a Bristow Fellow in the O ffice ofthe Solicitor G eneralat
the U .S.D epartm entofJustice and clerked for the H on.Joseph M .M cL aughlin ofthe U .S.C ourtofA ppeals
for the Second C ircuitand the H on.John G .R oberts,Jr.ofthe U .S.C ourtofA ppeals for the D .C .C ircuit.
M r.M cG illearned a Bachelor ofA rts degree, m agna cum laude, from D artm outh C ollege in 1996.In 2 0 0 0 ,
he graduated from Stanford L aw School,w here he w as elected to the O rder of the C oif.M r.M cG illis
licensed to practice in N ew Y ork and the D istrict of C olum bia and he has been adm itted to practice before
the Suprem e C ourt of the U nited States,the U nited States C ourts of A ppeals for the First,Second,Fifth,
N inth,E leventh,D istrict of C olum bia,and FederalC ircuits,and the U nited States D istrict C ourt for the
Southern D istrictofN ew Y ork.
C hris M artin
Partner
cjm artin@
sibsonduilli.00131
T : +1 650.849.5305
F: +1650.849.5005
Palo A lto O ffice
1881 Page M illR oad
Palo A lto,C A 94304-1211
C h ristop h er J. M artin is a p artn er in th e P alo A lto office of G ib son , D u n n & C ru tch er.
A m em ber of the firm 's L abor D epartm ent,M r.M artin has extensive experience in representing em ployers
in a w ide range of em ploym ent issues,including traditionallabor m atters arising under the N ationalL abor
R elations A ct,w age/hour and A D A class action litigation in federal and state courts,em ploym ent
discrim ination and state w rongfuldischarge actions.M r.M artin represents large,publicly-traded
com panies w ith m anufacturing operations in the San Francisco Bay A rea,as w ellas sm aller,em erging high-
t e c h
n
o
l o
g
y
c o
m
p
a
n
i e s .
M r.M artin graduated PhiBeta K appa w ith a bachelor of arts degree in E nglish in 1973 from Stanford
of
Law.
UCLA
School
1978
from
the
graduated
in
and
U niversity
M r.M artin is a fellow ofthe C ollege ofL abor and E m ploym entL aw yers.H e is also involved w ith the L abor
L aw Subsection of the Santa C lara C ounty Bar A ssociation,the L abor and E m ploym ent L aw Section of the
State Bar of C alifornia,and the L abor and E m ploym ent L aw Section of the A m erican Bar A ssociation.M r.
M artin has served on the faculty of the N ationalE m ploym ent L aw Institute and the Institute for A pplied
M an agem en t an d L aw . H e is cu rren tly on th e list of

N orthern C alifornia Super L aw yers.
M r.M artin has w ritten and lectured extensively in the area of labor relations and em ploym ent law .H e is a
m em ber ofthe C alifornia Em ploym entLaw C ounciland the Law yers C om m ittee ofthe Em ployers'G roup.
NLRB-FOIA-00008943
R ichard B.H ankins
P artner - A tlanta
rhankins@ m ckennalong.com
D ow nload vC ai"d
303 P eachtree S treet,N E
S uite 5300
A tlanta,G A 30308-3265
TE L: 404.527.8372
FA X : 404.527.4198
E xperience
Form ore than 20 years,R ichard H ankins has advised U .S.corporations w ith regard to a w ide variety of
com plex laborrelations m atters,such as large-scale union organizing and decertification cam paigns,strikes
and secondary boycotts,union jurisdictionaldisputes,and successorem ployerclaim s.H e w orks closely w ith
m anagem ent on laborrelations strategies related to new facilities,plant closings and consolidations,as w ell
as during acquisitions and divestitures.
M r.H ankins w as lead counselin w hat is believed to be the largest successfuldecertification cam paign in
U .S.history.H e has successfully argued num erous traditionallaborcases before U .S.C ircuit C ourts of
A ppeal,has appeared before m ore than 15 R egions of the N ationalLaborR elations B oard,and has spoken
at conferences forthe N ationalA cadem y of A rbitrators and otherprom inent groups.
M r.H ankins has been active on behalf of the business com m unity during the debate overthe Em ployee
Free C hoice A ct.H e has w ritten about and been interview ed by num erous m edia outlets in connection w ith
the bill,and has m et w ith key governm ent officials to present m anagem ent perspectives.
In addition to his w ork in labor-m anagem ent relations,M r.H ankins handles w age and hourm atters,
em ploym ent discrim ination claim s,and restrictive covenant cases.H e w as a C ontributing Editoron the
treatise: Covenants N ot To Com pete: A S tate-by-S tate S urvey (B N A B ooks,1991).
C ham bers U SA rates M r.H ankins as a leading G eorgia Laborand Em ploym ent law yer.H e has also been
nam ed a G eorgia SuperLaw yerby A tlanta M agazine.
M r.H ankins co-edits the blog Labor R elations Today, dedicated to tracking key legislative,executive and
adm inistrative regulatory developm ents thatsignificantly im pacthow em ployers interactw ith theirem ployees
and laborunions.
NLRB-FOIA-00008944
E d u catio n
J.D .,U niversity of M ississippiS choolof Law ,1985
B .S ., Freed-H ardem an C ollege, 1982
A d m itted
G eorgia
NLRB-FOIA-00008945
The m ost radical thing the O bam a
adm inistration has done.
n A pril 20, L afe Solom on,
the acting general counsel of
the N ational L abor R elations
B oard (nlrb), issued a com plaint

,
against B oeing.T w o years ago,the
com pany had announced it w as transferring

the production of 2,000 airplanes
from a unionized plant in Puget Sound,
W ashington,to a non-union plant outside
C harleston,South C arolina.A ccording
to Solom on's com plaint, w hat m ade
this decision illegal w as the com pany's
m otive.H igh-level B oeing officials had
stated publicly that the m ove w as being
m ade in response to strikes four over
the previous tw o decades led by the
m achinists'union at the Puget Sound
facility.If B oeing had said the m ove w as
dictated by costs or by the w eather,the
nlrb w ould not have cried foul.
Forty or fifty years ago,these kinds
of cases w ere com m on.N ow ,there are
few er of them but not because com panies
are better-behaved.E ver since the
R eagan adm inistration, w hich crippled
the nlrb,com panies have been free to
operate w ith im punity, m oving plants or
sim ply threatening to do so in order to
quell organizing efforts. T hat's w hy S olom on's ..
com plaint, w hich m ight have gone
unnoticed a generation ago,m ay be the
m ost radical thing the barna adm inistration
has done.
T he nlrb's com plaint has, predictably,
provoked how ls of outrage from the C ham ber of C om m erce,the N ational
A ssociation of M anufacturers, and B oeing
itself, w hich called it "legally frivolous."
N ine R epublican attorneys general
have dem anded that the nlrb w ithdraw
the com plaint,w hile others on the right
have suggested darkly that the agency's
real m otives are political. "T his is nothing
m ore than a political favor for the unions
w ho are supporting President O bam a's reelection
cam paign," charged South C arolina
R epublican Senator Jim D eM int.
In fact, the President and the W hite
H ouse had nothing to do w ith the decision.
A s for Solom on, he is a 39-year civil
servant w ith no history of labor m ilitancy.
H is com plaint stem s from a fairly uncontroversial
reading of the 1935 N ational
NLRB-FOIA-00008946
L abo r R elatio ns A ct (nlra), and its su b sequ ent
interpretation by the courts, according
to K arl K lare of N ortheastern
U niv ersity 's S ch o o l o f L aw . U nd er th e
nlra, em p lo y ers are g u ilty o f an "u nfair
lab or p ractice" if they "interfere w ith, restrain,
or coerce em ployees" in the exercise
of their right to "form ,
jo in o r assist lab o r o rg anizatio ns,
to bargain collectively
. and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose
of collective bargaining
o r o th er m u tu al aid o r p ro tectio n."
T h at m eans it's illeg al
for a business to threaten
o r penalize w orkers fo r seeking to o rg anize
a union or going on strike.
A cco rd ing to S o lo m o n's co m p laint,
there is com pelling evidence that B oeing
did just that. S olom on cited five public
statem ents by B oeing top executives
say ing that they w ere transferring the
jo b s to S o u th C aro lina to av o id strik es.
F o r instance, on O cto b er 2 1, 2 00 9, B oeing
C E O Jim M cN erney po sted a statem ent
o n th e co m p any 's intranet, w h ich
is accessible to all em ployees, attributing
th e d ecisio n to "strik es h ap p ening
every three or fou r y ears in P ug et
S ound." S uch a com m ent can be seen as
an attem pt to interfere w ith the right to
strike: It im plies that if em ployees do so,
th ey w ill lo se w o rk to no n-u nio nized
plants in other states.
S o lo m o n's co m p laint is no t a ru ling ,
but is instead m ore akin to a crim inal indictm ent,
in that it m erely seeks to establish
w h ether th ere are reaso nab le
grounds for believing an em ployer has
com m itted an unfair labor practice. B y
that standard, the com plaint is entirely
fair. It sets in m otion a trial by an adm inistrative
law ju d ge in S eattle o n Ju ne 1 4.
T he loser can appeal that decision to the
nlrb , w h o se d ecisio n can in tu rn b e ap p ealed
before a federal court.
If th e case g oes that far, B o eing stand s
a d ecent ch ance o f p rev ailing . T o w in,
th e nlrb w o u ld need to sh o w th at B o eing
ex ecu tiv es intend ed th eir w o rd s to
h av e a ch illing effect o n th e m ach inists'
rig h ts b u t sinister m o tiv es are no to rio u sly
difficult to prove, even w hen statem ents
lik e th o se o f M cN erney are in th e
p u b lic reco rd . U ltim ately , th e case's fate
m ay rest w ith th e p o litical inclinatio ns
o f th e ju d g es. In a 1 9 8 2 case, W eather
T am er v. N L R B , ju d g es o n th e g enerally
NLRB-FOIA-00008947
I'
conservative eleventh circuit threw
out an nlrb ruling against an em ployer.
T he co urt had been p resented w ith a reco rd
O f a supervisor stating that if w orkers
jo ined a u nio n, th e co m p any w o u ld
close the plant but ruled that this statem ent
w as no t "sufficient to establish a
m o tiv e to ch ill u nio nism ."
B usiness groups claim that if B oeing
loses, no com pany w ill be free to hire or
fire w orkers w itho u t seco nd -g u essing
fro m th e nlrb . B u t th ere's ano th er, u nstated ,
reaso n w h y R ep u b licans
and conservatives are so
w o rried ab o u t th is case. S ince
th e passage of th e T aft-H artley
law in 1 9 4 7 , w h ich allo w ed .
states to p ass rig h t-to-w ork
law s m aking union organization
m o re d ifficu lt, th e
S o u th and p arts o f th e R o ck y
M ountain and P rairie W est have beco m e
a haven for private firm s attem pting to
av o id u nio nizatio n. T h at h as h ad a p ro fo u nd
p o litical im p act.
T h e p o p u larity o f N ew D eal lib eralism
from the nlra to S ocial S ecurity,
tax ation w as roo ted in th e unionized
and p rim arily w h ite w o rk ing class o f th e
N orth. T hat w orking class has been decim ated
by the m ovem ent of private m anufacturing
firm s to no n-u nio n states and
o v erseas. It h as b een su p p lanted p o litically
b y a p riv ate secto r no n-u nio n w o rk ing .
class m o re attu ned to d iv isio ns o f
race and relig io n th an o f class. T h at, and
th e w hite S o u thern backlash to th e civil
rights m ovem ent, w ere m ajor factors in
th e g ro w th o f a new R ep u b lican co nserv atism
and in A m erica's tilt rig h tw ard
over the last thirty years.
T h e B o eing case, th en, isn't ju st
ab o u t co rp o rate p rero g ativ es. It's also
about the future of A m erican politics.
W ith S o lo m o n's co m p laint, th e nlrb
has taken a sm all but definite step tow ard
resto ring an earlier A m erica o ne
w h ere p o litics w asn't d o m inated b y th e
C ham ber of C om m erce or dem agogues
lik e Jim D eM int, and w o rk ers h ad rig h ts
that m attered.
John B .Judis
NLRB-FOIA-00008948
Ea p i ro ,
M iriam
o m : W ille n , D e b ra L
ant:
Thursday, A pril 21, 2011 8:35 A M
):
K earney, B arry J.; Farrell, Ellen; S ophir, Jaym e; S zapiro, M iriam
ubject: N Y Tim es co verage
York Tim es
20,2011
L ibor B oard T ells B oeing N ew F actory B reaks L aw
T EV EN G R EEN H O U S E
hat m ay be the strongest signalyet of the new pro-labor orientation of the N ationalL abor R elations B oard under President O bam a,the agency fik
to bring an airplane production line back to its unionized facilities in W ashington State instead of m ovi,
plaint W ednesday seeking to force 1_3()& lg
vork to a nonunion plant in South C arolina.
com plaint,the labor board said that B oeing's decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 D ream liner passenger plane to South
aina w as m otivated by an unlaw fuldesire to retaliate against union w orkers for their past strikes in W ashington and to discourage future strikes.'1
cy's acting generalcounsel,L afe Solom on,said it w as illegalfor com panies to take actions in retaliation against w orkers for exercising the right to
e.
ough m anufacturers have long m oved plants to nonunion states,the board noted that B oeing officials had,in internaldocum ents and new s
view s,specifically cited the strikes and potentialfuture strikes as a reason for their 2009 decision to expand in South C arolina.
ng said it w ould "vigorously contest" the labor board's com plaint."T his claim is legally frivolous and represents a radicaldeparture from both
R .B .and Suprem e C ourt precedent," said J.M ichaelL uttig,a B oeing executive vice president and its generalcounsel."B oeing has every right undi
federallaw and its collective bargaining agreem ent to build additionalU .S.production capacity outside of the Puget Sound region."
highly unusualfor the federalgovernm ent to seek to reverse a corporate decision as im portant as the location of plant.
w er since a D em ocratic m ajority took controlof the five-m em ber board after M r.O bam a's election,the board has signaled that it w ould seek to ac
ire liberal,pro-union tilt after years of pro-em ployer decisions under President B ush.
ough the board has not yet issued m any m ajor decisions reversing B ush-era policies,it has begun requiring private sector em ployers to post a noti
it w orkers'right to unionize,and M r.Solom on has begun m oving m ore aggressively to w in reinstatem ent of union supporters fired illegally by
agem ent during unionization drives.
statem ent W ednesday,M r.Solom on said: "A w orker's right to strike is a fundam entalright guaranteed by the N ationalL abor R elations A ct.W e al
gnize the rights of em ployers to m ake business decisions based on their econom ic interests,but they m ust do so w ithin the law ."
h C arolina's tw o senators,both R epublicans,L indsey G raham and Jim D eM int,denounced the board's m ove."T his is nothing m ore than a politic
rfor the unions w ho are supporting President O bam a's re-election cam paign," M r.D eM int said.
labor board said that in 2007,B oeing announced plans to create a second production line that w ould m ake three 787 D ream liner planes a m onth i
/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008949
er 2009,B oeing said it w ould locate its second line atanew ,nonunion plantin South C arolina.
N .L .R .B .asserted thaton num erous occasions B oeing officials had com m unicated an unlaw fulm otive for transferring the production line,includi
iterview w ith The Seattle Tim es in w hich a B oeing executive said,"The overriding factor w as notthe business clim ate.A nd itw as notthe w ages w c
rig today.Itw as thatw e cannotafford to have a w ork stoppage,you know ,every three years."
Solom on broughtthe com plaintafter a union representing m any of B oeing's W ashington w orkers,the InternationalA ssociation of M achinists an
A pace W orkers,com plained thatB oeing had decided to m ove production to South C arolina largely in retaliation for a 58-day strike in 2008.
ing's decision to build a 787 assem bly line in South C arolina senta m essage thatB oeing w orkers w ould suffer financialharm for exercising their
ctive bargaining rights," said the union's vice president,R ich M ichalski.
Solom on said thatif he failed to settle the dispute,an adm inistrative judge w ould begin hearing the case on June 14 in Seattle.M r.Solom on said h
notseeking to close the South C arolina factory or prohibitB oeing from assem bling planes there.
ng criticized the tim ing of the N .L .R .B .'s com plaint,saying itcam e w hen construction of the factory in N orth C harleston,S.C .,w as nearly com plet.
after 1,000 em ployees had already been hired there.
ng said on W ednesday thatnone of the production jobs in South C arolina had com e atthe expense of jobs in W ashington.Itnoted thatits unioniz
loym entin the PugetSound area had increased by
2 ,0 0 0
since itannounced its decision to expand in South C arolina.
com pany also said it had decided to expand in South C arolina in part to protect business continuity and to reduce the dam age to its finances and
tation from future w ork stoppages.
C ircular 230 D isclosure: T o com ply w ith certain U .S.T reasury regulations,w e inform you .
,unless expressly stated otherw ise,any U .S.federaltax advice contained in this
im unication,including attachm ents,w as not intended or w ritten to be used,and cannot be
by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties that m ay be im posed on such
)ayer by the Internal R evenue Service.In addition,if any such tax advice is used or referred
y other parties in prom oting,m arketing or recom m ending any partnership or other entity,
.stm ent plan or arrangem ent,then (i) the advice should be construed as w ritten in connection
the prom otion or m arketing by others of the transaction(s) or m atter(s) addressed in this
im unication and (ii) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular
um stances from an independent tax advisor.
************************************************************************************************
s e-m ail is sent by a law firm and m ay contain inform ation that is privileged or confidential.
ou are not the intended recipient,please delete the e-m ail and any attachm ents and notify us
lediately.
* * * * * ** ** ** * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * ** * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * ** * * **** * * * * * * * * *** * **** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** *
/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008950
B oeing C E O Is C onfident of W inning L abor C ase - W S.I.com #printM ode
D ow Jones R eprints: T his copy is for your persolial, non..com m e:oial ose only. Y u older presentalice..ready copies
for distribution lo your coileagnes, clients or
O rder R eprints tool al tile bottom of any article or visit w w w .cfireprints.com
S ee a sam ple reprint in PD F form at.
Page 1 of 2
C L IS iO IT IV S .
u se the
O rder a reprint of this article now
THEWALLSTREETJOURNAL.
. W S .L o o m
M A N A G EM EN T
JU N E 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 , 1 2 :2 7 P .M . E T
B oeing C E O Is C onfident of W inning L abor C ase
By PE TER S A N D ER S
L E B O U R G E T ,France B oeing C o.C hairm an and C hief E xecutive Jim M cN erney said he is confident that the
com pany w ill prevail in its legal battle w ith the U .S.N ational L abor R elations B oard over the com pany's decision to
build a com m ercial-airplane factory in South C arolina.
"W e're in a strong position and are absolutely confident that w e w ill prevail in term s of the law ," he said M onday in an
interview at the Paris A ir Show ."B ut it has the potential to drag out for years."
T he tw o sides m et at a hearing in Seattle last w eek.A dm inistrative L aw Judge C lifford A nderson quickly urged both
sides to w ork hard to reach a settlem ent but nothing w as im m ediately resolved.
"T here is alw ays a possibility of som e settlem ent," M r.M cN erney said but added that he w on't com prom ise the best
interests of his shareholders.N or w ill he com prom ise on the "principles involved" that he said enable com panies to
m ake the sm artest decisions w hen deciding w here to do business.
"A ll of the [settlem ent] ideas that have been floated so far com prom ise on those principles," he said.
For B oeing,w hich is w orking to ram p up production on its forthcom ing 787 D ream liner,the new factory in South
C arolina is integral to those plans.T he prim ary D ream liner assem bly line is in E verett,W ash.,north of Seattle,w ithin
B oeing's m ain w ide-body-jet factory.T hat factory em ploys union w orkers from the International A ssociation of
M achinists,w hich initiated the N L R B com plaint.
B oeing's South C arolina factory uses nonunion w orkers and is slated to build three D ream liners a m onth by late 2013.
Seven D ream liners a m onth w ill be built in E verett by then.
T he N L R B in its com plaint said B oeing decided to locate the second D ream liner assem bly line in South C arolina in
retaliation for a three-m onth strike in late 2008 that crippled the com pany's production lines.
B oeing denied the allegation.
B oeing has said that it didn't take any union jobs from the Puget Sound area w hen it chose to open the South C arolina
facility,but sim ply added new ones in that state. T he com pany pointed to union jobs created in Puget Sound in recent
years as B oeing increased production on com m ercial aircraft generally.
T he C hicago-based com pany w ill need to m ake m ajor business decisions in the com ing m onths as it decides the future
of the best-selling 737 single-aisle jet and the successful 777 long-distance m odel.B oeing is leaning tow ard building an
all-new sm all jet to replace the 737,an expensive undertaking that w ould require a significant increase in its w ork force
and the construction of at least one new factory.B oeing executives have said it is too early in the process to m ake
http://online.w sj.com /article/SB 10001424052702303936704576397670618039438.htm l?...
6/20/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00008951
B oeing C E O Is C onfident of W inning L abor C ase - W SJ.com #printM ode
Page 2 of 2
decisions on specific em ploym ent needs or possible locations.
M r.M cN erney said the N L R B case w ould have no im pacton B oeing's strategic plans."W e are confidentenough of our
position that itw on't influence our decisions atall," he said.B oeing hasn't said w here it w ould build a new plane if it
goes ahead w ith the project.
Jim A lbaugh,president and chief executive of B oeing's com m ercial-airplane unit,said M onday thatbecause of its
highly-skilled w ork force,W ashington is "clearly atthe top of the listof places w e look at" w hen considering new
projects.M r.A lbaugh w as appearing afa new s briefing w ith W ashington G ov.C hristihe G regoire.
C opyright 2011 D ow Jones & C om pany, Inc. A llR ights R eserved
T his copy is for your personal, non-com m ercialuse only. D istribution and use of this m aterialare governed by our S ubscriber A greem ent and by copyright
law . F or non-personaluse or to order m ultiple copies, please contact D ow Jones R eprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
w w w .djreprints.com
http://online.w sj.com /atticle/SB 10001424052702303936704576397670618039438.htm l?...
6/20/201'1
NLRB-FOIA-00008952
P R O M O T IN G E T H IC S IN P U B L IC L IF E
f
N atiG al Legaland Policy C enter
Iblished on NationalLegaland Policy C enter

(h ttp :Ip m g-)
fL R B Sues B oeing; Seeks E nd to C om m ercial Jet Production in South C arolina
C arl H o ro w itz
eated 05/04% 2011 - 15:46
le N ationalL abor R elations B oard m ust have a broad definition of "coercion" w hen it com es to em ployers.
'ith unions,the standard seem s a lot narrow er.O n A pril20,the board filed a 10-page com plaint (see pdf D i)
,ainst B oeing alleging the com pany's decision in 2009 to relocate its second assem bly plant in South C arolina
presented illegalretaliation against em ployees belonging to the InternationalA ssociation of M achinists &
D rospace W orkers (JA M ).A s a rem edy,the N L R B is seeking a judicialorder for the com pany to shift all
oduction of its planned 787 D ream liner com m ercialjet back to its originalfacility in W ashington State.T he
predictably,is delighted.B oeing and South C arolina officials are furious.T hat South C arolina,unlike
"ashington,is a R ight to W ork state has m ore than a little to do w ith the unfolding dram a.
ack on M arch 26,2010,the M achinists filed a com plaint[2 ] against B oeing w ith the N ationalL abor R elations
)ard.T he union claim ed the C hicago-based com pany,in m oving its finalassem bly plant for its 787 D ream lin
w ide-body,tw in-engine jet aircraft to a facility near C harleston,South C arolina,illegally had "retaliated"
;ainst the JA M for four separate strikes the union conducted over the course of 1989-2008.Instead of expanding its existing production facility in
terett,W ashington,located about 25 m iles north of Seattle,B oeing instead chose a site at C harleston A irport near C harleston,S.C .A fter conducting
investigation,N L R B A cting G eneralC ounselL afe Solom on found "reasonable cause" to believe that the com pany violated tw o sections of the
ationalL abor R elations A ct.First,the m ove allegedly w as m otivated by a desire "to retaliate for past strikes and chillfuture strike activity." Second,
3eing officials had m ade "coercive statem ents" to union em ployees relating to the m ove.
n w hat basis did the N L R B arrive at this conclusion? T he board cited internaldocum ents and new s interview s.B ut the interview s,at least,hardly
ake for scandal.In one supposedly dam ning instance,Jim A lbaugh,C E O of B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes,told the Seattle T im es (M arch 2,2010)
at w hile W ashington State rem ained his "preferred location" for building com m ercialaircraft,he w ould view South C arolina as a better alternative
'less the union "m oderates its future w age dem ands and avoids strikes." B oeing had especially good reason to fear strikes.T he last one,in 2008,
;ted alm ost tw o m onths and cost the com pany nearly $2 billion in lost revenue.T o com pensate,m anagem ent w anted w orkers to contribute m ore
w ard health insurance,forgo defined-benefit pension plans and agree to m ore outsourcing.A lbaugh stated: "T he overriding factor w as not the
Isiness clim ate.A nd it w as not the w ages w e are paying today.It w as that w e can't afford to have a w ork stoppage every three years.A nd w e can't
ford to continue the rate of escalation of w ages." B oeing C E O and C hairm an Jim M cN erney also engaged in "retaliation" by referring in a quarterly
m ing conference appearing on the B oeing w ebsite to diversifying [R espondent's] labor pooland labor relationship" and m oving 787 D ream liner
oduction to South C arolina due to "strikes happening every three to four years in Puget Sound." It's hard to see such statem ents as coercive.
eanw hile,South C arolina already had beckoned.A s a R ight to W ork state,w orkers there don't have to w orry about losing their jobs if they don't pa)
lion dues or agency fees.T he com pany had its eyes set on a site in N orth C harleston previously occupied by V ought A ircraft Industries Inc.In 2009,
3eing paid $750 m illion for the com plex,w hich it planned to retrofit for 787 D ream liner production at the rate of 10 planes a m onth.W ith orders
lling in since 2004,the State of South C arolina sw eetened the deal,adding nearly $900 m illion in tax relief and other incentives.T est flights began i
acem ber 2009; com m ercialproduction is expected to begin next year - the com pany hopes.
aluctant to leave its E verett w ork force high and dry,B oeing m ade a finalcontract offer that included a "no-strike" clause.T he m ove,m anagem ent
nphasized,w ould not replace W ashington State operations.Indeed,it w ould lead to m ore hiring in W ashington as w ellas South C arolina.T he
achinists,unim pressed,responded w ith a proposed 11-year agreem ent that w ould require the com pany to place allfuture com m ercialaircraft
oduction in the Puget Sound area; rem ain neutralin allunion organizing cam paigns; and reserve a seat on the its executive board for a union
presentative.A fter lengthy secret talks [4 ], B oeing said "no." Soon after,in O ctober 2009,it signed an agreem ent w ith South C arolina.
le InternationalA ssociation of M achinists,w hich represents som e 35,000 B oeing w orkers around the U .S.,25,000 in W ashington State,felt double-
ossed.Severalm onths later,the Seattle-based JA M D istrict L odge 751 filed an U nfair L abor Practice charge against the com pany,claim ing senior
)eing executives had used coercion against law fulunion activity."B oeing's decision to build a 787 assem bly line in South C arolina sent a m essage
at B oeing w orkers w ould suffer financialharm for exercising their collective bargaining rights," said IA M V ice President R ich M ichalski[5] upon
:aring the new s of the N L R B action."Federallabor law is clear: It's illegalto threaten or penalize w orkers w ho engage in concerted activity." D istric
;1 President T om W roblew ski[6 ] likew ise stated: "H ad w e allow ed B oeing to break the law and go unchecked in their actions,it w ould have given th
een light for corporate A m erica to discrim inate against union m em bers and w ould have becom e m anagem ent's new strategic tem plate to attack
nployees."
'hat union officials conveniently overlook,how ever,is that after the purchase of the N orth C harleston facility,union w orkers there voted 199-68 to
:certify the IA M as their bargaining representative shortly after the announcem ent of the m ove.A pparently,that sort of "concerted activity" isn't
NLRB-FOIA-00008953
cep tab le to M ach in ist ch ieftain s. F o llo w in g th e v o te, th e u n io n tiled a law su it ag ain st n ew S o u th C aro lin a R ep u b lican G o v ern o r N ik k i H aley ,
aim in g sh e h ad "v io lated U .S . lab o r law s an d th e C o n stitu tio n ." JA M S o u th ern T errito ry V ice P resid en t B ob M artinez [2 ] ex p lain ed th e u n io n 's
L sitio n : "G o v . H aley p laced h er h an d o n a B ib le an d sw o re to d efen d th e C o n stitu tio n o f th e U n ited S tates. [M u t h er stated in ten tio n is to activ ely
p o se w o rk ers in S o u th C aro lin a w h o w ish to ex ercise th eir leg al rig h t to jo in a u n io n ." M artin ez can 't seem to g et o v er th e fact th at w o rk ers in S o u th
arolina already have spoken.
le N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s B o ard , an d n o t fo r th e first tim e, ap p ears eag er to b eco m e a u n io n m o u th p iece. "A w o rk er's rig h t to strik e is a
n d am en tal rig h t g u aran teed b y th e N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s A ct," n o ted N L R B A ctin g G en eral C o u n sel L afe S o lo m o n in a statem en t released in
L n ju n ctio n w ith th e filin g o f th e A p ril 2 0 co m p lain t. "W e also reco g n ize th e rig h ts o f em p lo y ers to m ak e b u sin ess d ecisio n s b ased o n th eir eco n o m ic
terests, b u t th ey m u st d o so w ith in th e law ." B u t h o w h as B o ein g , b y try in g to av o id strik es, b ro k en th e law ? If u n io n s h av e th e rig h t to o rg an ize o r
essu re an em p lo y er in to m ak in g co n cessio n s, th e em p lo y er h as th e rig h t to tak e th is in to acco u n t w h en m ak in g d ecisio n s th at affect lo n g -term
L m p an y h ealth . T h e U .S . S u p rem e C o u rt affirm ed th is p rin cip le in a trio o f 1 9 6 5 ru lin g s:

T e xtile W o rke rs U n io n v. D arlin g to n M an u fairg: C o . 1 7 /;
E R B v. B row n 181; and A m erican S hip B uilding v. N LR B 191. O n ly in th e fo rm er d id th e H ig h C o u rt ru le in fav o r o f th e u n io n - an d th at q u alified
:cisio n in v o lv ed th e clo sin g o f an ex istin g p lan t, n o t th e o p en in g o f a n ew o n e.
th e N L R B , cu rren tly w ith fo u r m em b ers - th ree D em o crats an d o n e R ep u b lican (th e n o m in ee fo r th e fifth slo t, R ep u b lican T eren ce F ly n n , aw aits
:n ate ap p ro v al) - is so ex ercised b y B o ein g 's alleg ed u n io n -b u stin g tactics, w h y d id it w ait a y ear an d a h alf to file its co m p lain t ag ain st B o ein g ? It
L uld be that until M arch 2010, the board for 27 m onths had operated w ith only tw o m em bers [L ob W ilm a L iebm an and P eter S chaum ber, respectively,
em o crat an d a R ep u b lican . V icto ry fo r th e IA M u n d er th ese co n d itio n s, in o th er w o rd s, w as u n lik ely . W ith a p ro -u n io n m ajo rity in p lace, A ctin g
en eral C o u n sel S o lo m o n saw an o p p o rtu n ity to tak e actio n .
)ein g is an y th in g b u t h ap p y ab o u t th e N L R B law su it. "T h is claim is leg ally friv o lo u s an d rep resen ts a rad ical d ep artu re fro m b o th N L R B an d
ip rem e C o u rt p reced en t," said th e co m p an y 's g en eral co u n sel, J. M ich ael L u ttig . S o u th C aro lin a elected o fficials are esp ecially in cen sed . A tto rn ey
m eral A lan W ilso n recen tly n o ted th at th e co m p lain t ag ain st B o ein g w ill h u rt th e ab ility o f h is an d o th er states to create jo b s.
E ight other state
torneys general concurred w ith W ilson [I 1 ] in a p rep ared statem en t o n A p ril 2 8 . "T h is is n o th in g m o re th an a p o litical fav o r fo r th e u n io n s w h o are
p p o rtin g P resid en t O b am a's re-electio n cam p aig n ," rem arked S en. Jim D eM int, R -S .C . [2 ] "U n fo rtu n ately , it co m es at th e ex p en se o f h u n d red s o f jo b
S o u th C aro lin a an d th o u san d s o f jo b s n atio n w id e." F ellow S outh C arolina R epublican S enator L indsey G raham stated [121: "If successful, the N L R B
m p lain t w o u ld allo w u n io n s to h o ld a v irtu al 'v eto 'o v er b u sin ess d ecisio n s. L eft to th eir o w n d ev ices, th e N L R B w o u ld ro u tin ely p u n ish R ig h t to
o rk states th at v alu e an d p ro m o te th eir p ro -b u sin ess clim ates."
3vem or H aley m ay b e th e m o st o u tsp o k en o f all. L ay in g o u t h er p o sitio n in a g u est ed ito rial, "O bam a's S ilence on B oeing Is U nacceptable,"
L pearing in th e A pril 29 W all S treet Journal, she w rote:
[1 3 ]
S o u th C aro lin a is a rig h t-to -w o rk state, an d w e're p ro u d th at w ith in o u r b o rd ers w o rk ers can n o t b e req u ired to jo in a lab o r u n io n as a
co n d itio n o f em p lo y m en t. W e d o n 't n eed u n io n s p lay in g m id d lem an b etw een o u r co m p an ies an d o u r em p lo y ees. W e d o n 't w an t th em
fo rcefu lly in serted in to o u r p ro m isin g b u sin ess clim ate. A n d w e w ill n o t stan d fo r th em in tim id atin g S o u th C aro lin ian s.
T h at is ap p aren tly to o m u ch fo r P resid en t O b am a an d h is u n io n -b eh o ld en ap p o in tees at th e N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s B o ard , w h o h av e
ask ed th e co u rts to in terv en e an d fo rce B o ein g to sto p p ro d u ctio n in S o u th C aro lin a. T h e N L R B w an ts B o ein g to p ro d u ce th e p lan es o n ly
in W ash in g to n S tate, w h ere its w o rk ers m u st b elo n g to th e In tern atio n al A sso ciatio n o f M ach in ists an d A ero sp ace W o rk ers.
aley w en t o n to call th e actio n s b y th e N L R B "n o th in g less th an a d irect assau lt o n th e 2 2 rig h t-to -w o rk states acro ss A m erica."
iv o cates fo r each sid e w ill g et to sq u are o ff startin g th is Ju n e 1 4 in th e Jam es C . S an d H earin g R o o m in th e Jack so n F ed eral B u ild in g in S eattle
T o re an N L R B A d m in istrativ e L aw Ju d g e. B o ein g n o d o u b t w ill g iv e its all; p u llin g o u t o f S o u th C aro lin a w o u ld in cu r serio u s lo sses. B y M arch o f
is y ear, fu lly 8 3 5 o rd ers fro m a co m b in ed 5 6 cu sto m ers h ad p o u red in , d esp ite v ario u s p ro ject d elay s. T h e 7 8 7 D ream lin er is th e aircraft b u ild er's
arq u ee c o m m e rc ia l p ro d u ct, a lo g ica l s u cc es so r to its less fu e l-e ffic ien t 74 7-40 0 an d 76 7 m o d e ls. T h e J ap a n e se a re d ee p ly e n m es h e d in th e p ro je ct a :
a ll, p ro v id in g a 3 5 -p e rc e n t w o rk sh are an d a first-tim e-ev er p articip atio n in w in g p ro d u ctio n . A u n io n v icto ry , ev en w ith o u t th e w ag e an d b en efit
L ckage, m ight raise costs dram atically.
iere is a certain m easu re o fro u g h ju stice in all th is. B o ein g u n w ittin g ly h as b eco m e an IA M targ et d u e to its cap itu latio n to u n io n p o w er in th e p ast.
-ik e ag ain st B o ein g b y th e S o ciety o f P ro fessio n al E n g in eerin g E m p lo y ees in A ero sp ace b ack in early 2 0 0 0 , fo r ex am p le, resu lted in m an ag em en t
p itu latin g o n sev eral k ey issu es in o rd er to settle after 4 0 d ay s; th e w alk o u t cau sed B o ein g to m iss at least 1 5 aircraft d eliv eries an d so m e g o v ern m et
L n tracts. A n d th e co m p an y su ccu m b ed o n m ajo r issu es d u rin g a fo u r-w eek strik e b y th e M ach in ists in 2 0 0 5 , w h ich resu lted in o v erw h elm in g u n io n
L p ro v al o f a th ree-y ear co n tract - an d an o th er JA M strik e in 2 0 0 8 . B o ein g is a co m p an y th at h as v irtu ally en sh rin ed racial, ethnic and gender diversit3
an operating_principle [1 4 ]. A n d C E O Jim M cN erney is tight w ith P resident M am a [1 5 ]. T h e co m p an y is p ay in g a h ig h p rice fo r its ap p earan ce o f
ck lessn ess. T h e case sh o u ld stan d as a lesso n to all co m p an ies: U n io n s an d th eir p o litical allies d o n 't b eco m e "n icer" after th ey cau se a co rp o rate
rg et to b u ck le. T o th e co n trary , th ey g et n astier.
elated:
bam a's C ham ber S peech a T angle of C ontradictions

'ill N L R B C reate S tealth P ro-U nion L egislation?
[1 5 ]
[1 6 ]
iprem e C ourt R ules against T w o-M em ber N L R B : D ecision M ay R eopen D isputes rug
prthrop D rops T anker B id; N L P C E xposed B oeing S candal lin
)eing S hareholder P roposal T argets 'G olden P arachutes' [1 8 ]
NLRB-FOIA-00008954
A .
n te rn a tio n a l A s s o c ia tio n o f M a c h in is ts (J A M ) J im A lb a u g h J im M c N e rn e y L a fe S o lo m o n N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd (N L R B ) N ik
H a le y U n io n C o rru p tio n U p d a te
urce U R L : http://n1pc.org/stories/011/05/04/nlrb-sues-boeing-seeks-end-com m ercial-kE production-south-carolina
nks:
http://seattletim es.nw sou rce.com /A B Pub /2011/04/20/2014824340.pdf
http://frontpagem ag.com /2011/04/22/obam as-union-thugs-descend-on-am erican-industry/
http://en.w ikipedia.org/w iki/B oeing_787_D ream liner
http://com m unity.seattletim es.nw source.com /m obile/?type= story& id= 2010113362
http://w w w .goiam .org/index.php/new s/press-releases/8624-m achinists-hail-nlrb-com plaint-over-boeing-south-carolina-m ove
http://w w w .w slclorg/reports/2011/A pri1/21.htm #T hursday
http://suprem e.justia.com /us/380/263/
http://n1pc.org/stories/2010/06/24/suprem e-court-rules-against-tw o-m em ber-nlrb-decision-m ay-reopen-disputes
1] http://w w w .businessw eek.com /ap/financialnew s/D 9M T G K 081.htm
2] http://scgop.com /nIrb-action-against-boeing-should-end/
3] h ttp ://on lin e.w sj.com /artic1e/S B 10001424052748703778104576287290266016016.h tm l
1] http://w w w .boeing.com /aboutus/diversity/groups.htm l
5] http://n1pc.org/stories/2011/02/07/obam as-cham ber-speech-tangel-contradictions
5] http://n1pc.org/stories/2011/01/24/w ill-nlrb-create-stealth-pro-union-legislation
7] http://n1pc.org/stories/2010/03/10/northrop-drops-tanker-bid-n1pc-exposed-boeing-scandal
3] http://n1pc.org/stories/2009/04/24/boeing-shareholder-proposal-targets-golden-parachutes
NLRB-FOIA-00008955
Labor N ew s
C o n tact: C o n n ie K ellih er 206-764-0343 o ffice, 206-755-8575 cell
B ryan C o rliss 206-764-0357 o ffice, 425-327-3512 cell
B oeing U ses C lout to B lock F ederalLaw E nforcem ent A ction
The B oeing C om pany has long been a top spender in the W ashington legislature to .gain
lo w tax rates an d o th er co rp o rate b en efits. N o w it is tryin g to u se its clo u t in th e o th er
retaliating against its w orkers w ho engaged in collective activity by m oving part of their w ork on
the new 787 D ream liner to ano ther state. B oeing pub licly adm itted that its prim ary m o tive w as
Y esterday, in an unprecedented attack on a federallaw enforcem ent agency,B oeing's top
law yer sent a 10-page public rant to the agency, attacking and dem anding that the agency's law
enforcem ent efforts be w ithdraw n. S uch a letter is highly unusual, as it seeks to underm ine the
A gency's authority to perform its statutory duties. Typically, em ployers charged by the A gency
m ake their defenses at a legalhearing,w hich has already been scheduled,and do not seek to take
ag en cy w ith n o tie s to o rg a n ize d la b o r, is u p fo r c o n firm a tio n in th e U .S . S e n a te la te r th is y e a r.
"In m y 2 8 years of practicing labor law , I have never seen an em ployer use these types of
law yer. "R ath er than face the m u sic at th e Ju ne 14 hearin g, the B oeing C o m pan y is ap paren tly
trying to kill the case politically. This tactic show s all too clearly how desperate the C om pany is
The N LR B 's case against B oeing rests upon B oeing's ow n adm issions that it sought to
NLRB-FOIA-00008956
46,
-
w hatever action itthinks m ay be necessary to avoid collective bargaining and strike activity,that
is sim ply not the law .Just as the law prohibits discrim ination against w histleblow ers oew orkers
w ho take fam ily leave,A m erica's law s protect w orkers w ho engage in collective activity.
T his case presents a sim ple issue: D o big com panies have to obey the law ? If em ployers
can retaliate againstw orkers w ho exercise rights thatare protected by law ,then those rights w ill
be gone.T he N LR B 's long-term professionalR egionalStaff;N ationalO ffice of A dvice and
G eneralC ounselreview ed this case for a year,found convincing m erit,and issued a com plaint.
The hearing should continue according to its rules like any law enforcem entprocess.
If,as B oeing claim s,the case is frivolous,it w illhave the opportunity to present its
argum ent before a judge on June 14 in Seattle.It can appealthe judge's decision to m em bers of
the N ationalLabor R elations Board.Ifitis stillunsatisfied,itcan appealto the federalcourts.
Instead of follow ing the rule of law ,B oeing is using its trem endous politicalclout to try
to stop the actions of an independent federallaw enforcem ent agency.Such tactics m ight w ork
in corruptnations w here m oney notthe law rules,butshould nothere in A m erica.
##
NLRB-FOIA-00008957
ifk r
im n r u res a sn o t 3 U U til l.a r u n in t can -t ig n o re
K athleen P arker,F riday,A pril 22,7:33 P M
alm ost clockw ork: A s a new presidential election cycle w inds around,the early prim ary state of South C arolina provide
ning issue for A m ericans and candidates to chew over.
ether it's a debate about w here the C onfederate battle flag should fly or the "real" m eaning of secession the nation
;t stubborn state can be a tarpit for the incautious politician.
is,alm ost to the day that South C arolina com m em orated the 150th anniversary of the first shot of the C ivil W ar,the fede
ernm ent lobbed a grenade into the Palm etto State,challenging a private industry's right to conduct business there.
w ait just a cotton-pickin'm inute.
ssue is w hether B oeing,w hich is slated to open a plant this sum m er in N orth C harleston and create thousands of jobs,
CE
L ily do so.T he N ational L abor R elations B oard (N L R B ) contends in a com plaint recently filed against B oeing that the
Ipany can't open its plant in "right to w ork" South C arolina because the m ove is allegedly m otivated by an attem pt to av
ces and thus intim idate B oeing w orkers elsew here.
n though it is perfectly logical that businesses prefer nonunionized w orkforces, it is technically illegal to m ake business
isions in retaliation against union w orkers. U nionized w orkers in the com pany's E verett, W ash., facility have gone on st
.ral tim es in recent years.
does this m ean that B oeing's decision to locate a second production line in another state constitutes retaliation?
m idation? O r is it m erely a good business decision based on several factors,including a better clim ate and a m ore tax-
ndly environm ent? Prettier w om en? K idding, kidding!
en it com es to red-m eat issues around w hich conservatives can coalesce, you couldn't do m uch better than unions vs.
'ate industry,especially in historically anti-union South C arolina.T he N L R B just tossed a K obe tenderloin to the G O P.
:ing history aside for the m om ent,this battle sim plifies and clarifies the stakes in the private-vs.-public debate and m ay
ce it easier for fence-straddlers to pick a political side.O ther related issues have been som ew hat less clear-cut for all but
ideologically corseted.
V isconsin,for instance,w here unions and G O P G ov.Scott W alker have battled over w hether state w orkers should have
ective bargaining pow ers beyond w age negotiations,a fair determ ination could seem elusive at tim es.Shouldn't w orker;
e the right to negotiate as a team ? T he governor's position w as that the state couldn't afford to m eet public-em ployee un
lands on pensions,forcing taxpayers into indefinite debt.
.th C arolina's situation is less m urky.
.ics of the N L R B com plaint claim that the O bam a adm inistration is m erely m assaging the union vote.C ritics of B oeing
E
com pany's business decision as intim idating to its other w orkers,w ho m ay fear their jobs are at risk and their bargainini
iers dim inished.
key question isn't w hether B oeing executives are trying to avoid strikes and m axim ize productivity and profits. O f coui
'are. T he m ore com pelling concern is w hether unions should be allow ed essentially to veto w here a com pany locates an
ducts business.
laps the question w ill have to be answ ered by the courts, but South C arolinians, including G ov. N ikki H aley (R ) and
)ublican Sens.L indsey G raham and Jim D eM int,prom ise a fight.In the interim ,a couple of facts are w orth considering:
!,2,000 jobs have been added to the E verett plant since the South C arolina project w as announced,so job security seem s
L nonissue.T w o,given that the South C arolina plant has been w ell underw ay for a couple of years,the tim ing of the N L I
iplaint raises questions of m otive.

NLRB-FOIA-00008958
.
.
.ip.glhatI've ever seen."
inw hile,one couldn't find a m ore personal issue to bestir local passions in a state that boasts politics as blood sport.Fed
"outside agitators" telling locals w hat to do and stealing jobs in the process? See: Fort Sum ter.O bviously this skirm ish
sn't com pare to slavery or Jim C row ,the end of w hieh did require outside "interference." B ut even today,it doesn't take
.:11 to unscab the tw in w ounds of invasion and hum iliation.
lublican candidates w ill have no trouble picking the right side of this argum ent,and D em ocrats w ill be hard-pressed to
ose such an anti-business posture.A ny politician w ould be m istaken to ignore the stakes.B y any other nam e,this is civi
rzleenparker@ washpost.com
NLRB-FOIA-00008959
A L A N W IL S O N
A pril 28,2011
1099 14
th Street,N W ,Suite 8600
D ear M r.Solom on:
A s A ttorneys G eneral of our respective states,w e call upon you,as A cting G eneral
C ounsel of the N ational L abor R elations B oard ("N L R B "),to w ithdraw im m ediately the
com plaint num bered 19-C A -32431 against B oeing.T his com plaint represents an assault upon the
constitutional right of free speech,and the ability of our states to create jobs and recruit industry.
Y our ill-conceived retaliatory action seeks to destroy our citizens'right to w ork.It is South
C arolina and B oeing today,but w ill be any of our states,w ith our right to w ork guarantees,
tom orrow .
T he right to w ork,uninhibited by com pulsory unionism ,is a precious right and is
constitutionally enforceable through our states'right to w ork law s. $ee R etail C lerks Int'l v.
Scherm erhorn,375 U .S.96 (1963).Such law s are designed to elim inate union affiliation as a
criterion for em ploym ent.H ow ever,the N L R B ,through this single proceeding,attem pts to
sound the death knell of the right to w ork.A dditionally,this tenuous com plaint w ill reverberate
throughout union and non-union states alike,as international com panies w ill question the
cause or justification.
Furtherm ore,this com plaint disrupts,and m ay w ell elim inate,the production of B oeing
787 D ream liners in South C arolina.In fact,B oeing has expanded its operations to m eet product
dem and in South C arolina,w hile adding new jobs in W ashington State.T he com plaint charges -
B oeing w ith the com m ission of an unfair labor practice,but appears to do so w ithout legal and
factual foundation.T his unparalleled and overreaching action seeks to drive a stake through the
heart of the free enterprise system .T he statem ents of B oeing officials cited in your com plaint are
the innocent exercise of the com pany's.right of free speech.T he Suprem e C ourt long ago m ade
it clear that the N L R A does not lim it,and the First A m endm ent protects,the em ployer's right to
express view s on labor policies or problem s. N .L .R .B .v.V a.E lectric and P ow er,314 U S 469,
NLRB-FOIA-00008960
H on.L afe E .Solom on
April27,2011
Page 2
477 (1941).As the C ourt recently reiterated in C itizens U nited v.FE C ,130 S.C t.876,899-90
(2010),a corporation is nota second class citizen in term s ofFirstAm endm entprotection.
O ur states are struggling to em erge from one ofthe w orsteconom ic collapses since the
D epression.Y our com plaintfurther im pairs an econom ic recovery.Intrusion by the federal
bureaucracy on behalfofunions w illnotcreate a single new job or putone unem ployed person
back to w ork.
The only justification for the N LR B's unprecedented retaliatory action is to aid union
survival.Y our action seriously underm ines our citizens'rightto w ork as w ellas their ability to
com pete globally.Therefore,as Attorneys G eneral,w e w illprotectour citizens from union
bullying and federalcoercion.W e thus callupon you to cease this attack on our rightto w ork,
our states'econom ies,and our jobs.
W e look forw ard to your im m ediate response.
Sincerely,
0 1 6 4 0
a llt if f P
Alan W ilson
Attorney G eneral
C c: R espective C ongressionalD elegations
NLRB-FOIA-00008961
H on.L afe E .Solom on
A pril27,2011
Page 3
C t)
trA 4.
K en C uccinelli
A ttorney G eneral
C om m onw ealth of V irginia
Jon C .B runing
A ttorney G eneral
State of N ebraska
Pov6hock,
Sam uelS.O lens
A ttorney G eneral
State of G eorgia
Pam B ondi
A ttorney G eneral
State of Florida
E .ScottPruitt
A ttorney G eneral
State of O klahom a
/ e---
T om H orne
A ttorney G eneral
State of A rizona
Ae_r
G reg A bbott
A ttorney G eneral
State of Texas
LaPet
L uther Strange
A ttorney G eneral
State of A labam a
NLRB-FOIA-00008962
.U N IT E D S T A T E S O F A M E R IC A
B E F O R E T H E N A T IO N A L L A B O R R E L A T IO N S B O A R D
R E G IO N 19
T H E B O E IN G C O M P A N Y
and
C ase 19-C A -32431
Lodge N o.751 ("Local 751" O r the "U nion"), affiliated w ith International A ssociation of
Th e B oein g C om pany ("R espond ent" or "B o eing"), h as b een engaging in unfair labor
practices as set forth in the N ational Labor R elations A ct (the "A ct"), 29 U .S .C . 151 et
seq.
B a s e d th e re o n , th e A c tin g G e n e ra l C o u n s e l o f th e N a tio n a l L a b o r
R elations B oard (the "B oard"), by the undersigned, pursuant to 10(b) of the A ct and
102.15 o f th e B o ard 's R u les an d R eg u latio n s, issu es th is C o m p lain t an d N o tice o f
1.
The C harge w as filed by the U nion on M arch 26, 2010, and w as served on
R espondent by regular m ailon or about M arch 29, 2010.
NLRB-FOIA-00008963
2.
(a)
various facilities throughout the U nited S tates,including in E verett,W ashington (the
areas.
(b )
(c)
(d )
3.
The U nion is, and has been at all m aterial tim es, a labor organization
4.
-2 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008964
behalf of R espondent:
Jim A lbaugh
A irplanes (as oflate A ugust2009)
ScottC arson
Executive Vice President,B oeing;C EO ,B oeing
R ay C onner
Scott Fancher
Program
Fred K iga
Relations
D oug K ight
Jim M cN em ey
Jim Proulx
B oeing spokesm an
Pat Shanahan
A irplane Program s
G en e W o lo sh yn
5.
(a)
. f " ...
the collective bargaining agreem ent.described below in paragraph 5(c),including, inter
?lie, allproduction and m aintenance em ployees in W ashington S tate,constitute a unit
A ct (the "Puget Sound U nit").
.e
(b )
the collective bargaining agreem ent described below in paragraph 5(c),including,

inter
-3 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008965
alia, allproduction and m aintenance em ployees in the P ortland,O regon area,constitute
of the A ct (the "P ortland U nit").
(c)
designated exclusive collective bargaining representative of the P uget S ound U nit and
the P ortland U nit (collectively,the "U nit") and recognized as such representative by
S eptem ber 8,2012.
(d )
6.
th e U n it b ecau se em p lo yees h ad stru ck an d R esp o n d en t th reaten ed o r im p lied ly
threatened that the U nit w ould lose additionalw ork in the event of future strikes:
7'
(a) O cto ber 21, 2009, by M cN erney in a quarterly earnings conference
S eattle P ost Intelligencer A erospace N ew s and quoted in the S eattle.Tim es,m ade an
exten d ed statem en t reg ard in g "d iversifyin g [R esp o n d en t's] lab o r p o o l an d lab o r
happening every three to four years in P uget S ound."
T N .
-4 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008966
(b )
O ctober 28, 2009, based on its O ctober 28, 2009, m em orandum
am ong other things,that its decision to locate the second 787 D ream liner line in South
(c)
the Seattle Tim es,attributed R espondent's 787 D ream liner production decision to use a
line to past U nitstrikes.
(d )
C arolina line to past U nit strikes.
(e)
in S outh C arolina because of past U nit strikes,and threatened the loss of future U nit
w ork opportunities because of such strikes.
7.
(a)
but no later than O ctober 28, 2009, R espondent decided to transfer its second 787
D ream liner production line of 3 planes per m onth from the U nit to its non-union site in
-5 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008967
(b)
7(a) because the U nit em ployees assisted and/or supported the U nion by, inter alia,
(c)
8.
(a)
program for its 787 D ream liner production line from the U nit to its non-union facility in
(b )
8(a) because the U nit em ployees assisted and/or supported the U nion by,
inter alia,
(c)
-6 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008968
9.
interfering w ith, restraining , and co ercing em ployees in the exercise o f th e righ ts
10.
17)
11.
12.
A s part of the rem edy for the unfair labor practices alleged herein, the
A cting G eneral C ou nsel seeks an O rder requiring eith er that o ne o f the high level
B oeing official, an y notice that issu es in this m atter, an d requirin g R espond ent to
13.
(a)
-7 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008969
to have the U nit operate its second line of 787 D ream liner aircraft assem bly production
in the S tate of W ashington,utilizing supply lines m aintained by the U nit in the S eattle,
W ashington,and Portland,O iegon,area facilities.
(b)
S outh C arolina,facility.
R esp o n d en t is n o tified th at, p u rsu an t to 102.20 an d 102.21 o f th e
m ust be received b y th is office on or b efore M ay 4, 2011, or p ostm ark ed on or
before M ay 3, 2011. U nless filed electronically in a pdf form at,R espondent should file
A n answ er m ay also be filed electronically by using the E -Filing system on
the A gency's w ebsite.In order to file an answ er electronically, access .the A gency's
w ebsite at w w w .n lrb .ao v, click o n File.C ase D o cu m en ts, en ter th e N L R B C ase
N um ber, and follow the detailed instructions.The responsibility for the receipt and
usability of the answ er rests exclusively upon the sender.U nless notification on the
-8 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008970
et.

z .
R egionalO ffice by traditionalm eans w ithin three (3) .business days after the date of
electronic filing.
zrr
P L E A S E T A K E N O T IC E T H A T o n th e 14th d ay of Ju n e, 2011, at 9:00
a.m ., in J a m es C . S a n d H ea rin g R o o m , 2 9 6 6 J a ck so n F ed era l B u ild in g , 9 1 5
S econ d A ven u e, S eattle, W ash in gton ,

and on consecutive days thereafter until
concluded, a hearing w ill be conducted before an A dm inistrative Law Judge of the
- 9 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008971
th is co m p lain t.T h e p ro ced u res to b e fo llo w ed at th e h earin g are d escrib ed in th e
D A TE D at S eattle,W ashington,this 20 th day of A pril,2011.
915 S econd A venue
10 -
NLRB-FOIA-00008972
Pag e 1 of1
A llen , C o n stan ce
(1 (1)1LsIA)
From :
A lbertsen, M ary
S ent:
T u esd ay, A u g u st 31, 2010 7:21 PM
T o:.
A dvice; Injunction Litigation B ranch; K earney, B arry J.; K atz, Judy
C c:
B aniszew ski, Joseph; A hearn, R ichard L.; Pom erantz, A nne
Subject:
B oeing C om pany, 19-C A -32431: S u bm issio n
A ttach m en ts: A D V .19-C A -32431.B oeing.R equest for A dvice and A uth to S eek 10(j) Inj R elief.pdf
A ttached please find a R equest for A dvice and A uthorization to S eek S ection 10(j)Injunctive R elief in the above
case.
M a rcy A lb erE sen , A O M
R egion 19 - S eattle, W A
(206) 220-6318
9/1/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00008973
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008974
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008975
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008976
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008977
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008978
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008979
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008980
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008981
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008982
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008983
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008984
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008985
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008986
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008987
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008988
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008989
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008990
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008991
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008992
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008993
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008994
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008995
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008996
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008997
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008998
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00008999
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009000
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009001
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009002
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009003
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009004
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009005
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009006
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009007
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009008
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009009
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009010
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009011
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009012
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009013
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009014
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009015
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009016
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009017
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009018
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009019
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009020
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009021
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009022
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009023
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009024
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009025
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009026
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009027
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009028
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009029
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009030
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009031
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009032
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009033
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009034
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009035
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009036
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009037
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009038
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009039
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009040
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009041
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009042
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009043
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009044
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009045
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009046
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009047
Ft'
G E N E R A L C O U N SE L 'S A G E N D A
D IV ISIO N O F A D V IC E
M onday,O ctober 18,2010 2:00 p.m .
I.
2. T he B oeing C om pany
C ase 19-C A -32431
non-responsive
W illen
Szapiro
D ist IV
NLRB-FOIA-00009048
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009049
N a tio n a l L ab o r R e latio n s B o ard
O FFIC E O F T H E G E N E R A L C O U N SE L
A dvice M em orandum
DATE:
Ta
Late E. Solomon, Acting General Counsel
FROM:
Ellen A. Farrell, Deputy Associate General Counsel
Jayme L. Sophir, Assistant General Counsel
Miriam Szapito, Supervisory Attorney
Debra L. Willen, Staff Attorney
Division of Advice
SUBJECT:
The Boeing Company
Case 19-CA-32431
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009050
*;
ca6e ,19-CA-32431
- 2 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009051
.Ca'se 119-CA-32431
- 3 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009052
,Calse 119-CA-32431
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009053
"
,Ca.se 119-CA-32431
- 5 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009054
(Case 119-CA-32431
- 6 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009055
gage ,19-CA-32431
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009056
,Cabe 19-CA-32431
- 8 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009057
4.
,Cae.19-CA-32431
- 9 -
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009058
Ca.e 19-CA-32431
- 1 0 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009059
z,
,Cae.19-CA-32431
- 1 1 - .
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009060
,Cae .19-CA-32431
- 12 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009061
'
1C.ae.19-CA-32431
- 13 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009062
f2 a e ,19-CA-32431
- 14 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009063
,Case,19-CA-32431
- 15 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009064
,Case ,19-CA-32431
- 16 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009065
Cae ,19-CA-32431
- 17 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009066
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009067
,Ca s e ,19-CA-32431
- 19 -
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009068
,Case,19-CA-32431
- 20 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009069
* ,Cae,19-CA-32431
- 21 .-
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009070
,Ca'se,19-CA-32431
- 22 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009071
,Cae,19-CA-32431
- 23 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009072
,Case,19-CA-32431
- 24 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009073
.Case,19-CA-32431
- 25 -
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009074
!.%
..
k r':
. :.:
11,o.
S ktit 111
% % el
iti.7,tt..
::(i t:rt ...
I..
iF
tit. f;t.ta.1 rlit
4 .E r.,
fr!
K t:
United,4:otates m att
C O M M IT T E E O N H E A L T H . E D U C A T IO N
L A B O R . A N D P E N S IO N S
w A sH iN ica O N , D C e'IlS ri
rA rr
M ay 3,2011
M r.Lafe S olom on
O ffice of the G eneral C ounsel
1099 14th S t. N W
D ear M r.S olom on:
W e are w riting to express our strong concerns about your A pril20 1h com plaint filed
against The B oeing C om pany. The com plaint alleged that B oeing's decision to open a
new production line for construction in S outh C arolina constituted an unfair labor
practice. W e strongly disagree. A nd w e are troubled about the chilling effect that your
action m ay have on business decisions across the country.
W e have a duty to ensure that the N ational Labor R elations A ct ("the A ct") is being
enforced in a fair m anner. In this and other decisions,w e believe that you have ignored
the proper balance-setforth in -the A ct betw een -the em ployees'right td -collectiV ely --
bargain and the em ployers'right to due process. W e question the legal reasoning and
m otive behind the com plaint,as w ellas the proposed rem edy to force B oeing to m ove
its additionalproduction line to W ashington S tate.
It is clear that B oeing's legitim ate business decision had no adverse im pact on the
P uget S ound w orkforce indeed, 2,000 additional jobs have been created there since
2009. U nder w ell-established precedent, em ployers m ay consider m itigating the im pact
of strikes as a business objective.G iven the m ultitude of U .S . industries dependent on
the product forthcom ing from this production line,the desire to ensure continuity of
operations is only logical.
W e are also concerned about the tim ing of your announcem ent. B oeing announced its
decision to open an additionalproduction line in S outh C arolina in O ctober 2009.
H ow ever,your office w aited untilA pril2011 to file the com plaint,just three m onths
before the new production line is scheduled to begin in July 2011.This com plaint has
the potential to elim inate thousands of new ly created and W ell-com pensated jobs in
S outh C arolina.It w ill have a negative effect on im portant decisions m ade by A m erican
businesses every day regarding w ho to em ploy and w here to expand, and negate the
NLRB-FOIA-00009075
ability of states to attract established U .S.em ployers by providing financialincentives
and w elcom ing business clim ates.
In today's econom y m ost U .S .businesses,including B oeing,are com peting on an
internationalscale.P resident O bam a appears to have recognized that fact,stating in a
January 2011 speech about A m erica's com petitiveness,that,"O ur challenge is to do
everything w e can to m ake it easier for folks to bring .products to m arket and to start and
expand new businesses and to grow and hire new W orkers." W e (agree w ith the
P resident.A nd,that is w hy w e are so deeply troubled by your decision regarding
B oeing's business operations.
W hile w e understand the -com plaint process is stillin the early stages,there is a need
,/for the B oard to explain the reasoning in this case to C ongress.A s your nom ination is
brought before our C om m ittee,w e w illbe asking for a greater explanation of your
actions.
Sincerely,
J.;
Senator M ichaelB .
ZI
dW n it.4 A V C 1)(4,44,4,A
S enator Lam ar A lexander
S enator R ichard B urr
S enator Johnny lsakson
S enator R and P aul
S enator O rrin G .H atch
Senator John -M cC ain
S enatcir Pat R oberts
Senator Lisa M urkow ski
S enator M ark K irk
NLRB-FOIA-00009076
4-
UN IT E D ST A T E S O F A M E R IC A
R E G IO N 19
I C ase 19-C A -32431
and
w ith
W O R K E R S
A N SW E R
NLRB-FOIA-00009077
D E FE N SE S
W ithoutassum ing any burden.ofproof,persuasion or production nototherw ise legally
assigned to itas to any elem entofthe claim s alleged in the C om plaint,B oeing asserts the
1.
The C om plaintand each purported claim for reliefstated therein failto allege
facts sufficientto state a claim upon w hich reliefm ay be granted.
2.
The statem ents cited in Paragraphs 6(a)-6(e)ofthe C om plaintare protected
statem ents under Section 8(c)ofthe N LR A and under the FirstA m endm entto the United States
C onstitution and are notadm issible to show any violation ofthe N LR A .
3.
based upon a num ber ofvaried factors,including a favorable business environm entin South
C arolina for m anufacturing com panies like Boeing;significantfinancialincentives from the
State ofSouth C arolina;achieving geographic diversity ofits com m ercialairline operations;as
w ellas to protectthe stability ofthe 787's globalproduction system .In any event,even
ascribing an intentto Boeing thatitplaced the second line in N orth C harleston so as to m itigate
the harm fuleconom ic effects ofan anticipated future strike w ould notbe evidence thatthe
respectto the placem entofthe second assem bly line in N orth C harleston even ifithad nottaken
into consideration the dam aging im pactoffuture strikes on the production of787s.
4.
Even ifthe actions described in the C om plainthad constituted m ovem entor
transfer ofw ork,w hich allegations B oeing expressly denies,the InternationalA ssociation of
M achinists and A erospace W orkers D istrictLodge 751,affiliated w ith InternationalA ssociation
NLRB-FOIA-00009078
5.
B oeing has notviolated Section 8(a)(3)ofthe N L R A as ithas notdiscrim inated in
the hire,w ages,tenure,or term s or conditions ofem ploym entofany Unitm em ber.
6.
B oeing's alleged conductw as notinherently destructive ofem ployees'rights
under the N LR A because, inter alia,in its collective bargaining agreem entw ith Boeing,the JA M
expressly agreed thatBoeing has the rightto place w ork in any location ofits choice w ithoutthe
need to bargain w ith the IA M ,and because an intentto m itigate the adverse econom ic im pactof
N L R A .
7.
B oeing has notviolated Section 8(a)(1)ofthe N L R A as ithas notinterfered w ith,
restrained,or coerced em ployees represented by the JA M in the exercise oftheir rights protected
by the N LR A .
8.
The rem edy requested in the C om plaintis im perm issibly punitive and w ould
cause an undue hardship on B oeing,its em ployees,and the State ofSouth C arolina.M oreover,
none ofthe com plained ofactions caused any hardship on any B oeing em ployees or the State of
W ashington.
9.
The rem edy requested in Paragraph 13(a)ofthe C om plaintis im perm issibly
from current B oard and court precedent.'
10.
The rem edy requested in Paragraph 12 ofthe C om plaintis im proper because
NLRB-FOIA-00009079
p .
11.
T he rem edy requested in Paragraph 13(a) of the C om plaintis im perm issible
because itdoes notseek a restoration of the status quo.
12.
13.
Som e or allof the claim s asserted in the C om plaintare barred by the six m onth
statute of lim itations setforth in Section 10(b) of the N L R A .
14.
T he C om plaintis ultra vires because the A cting G eneralC ounselof the N L R B
did notlaw fully hold the office of A cting G eneralC ounselatthe tim e he directed thatthe
C om plaintbe filed..
Pream ble:B oeing denies the allegations contained in the pream ble,exceptto adm itthat
D istrictL odge 751,affiliated w ith the InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and A erospace
W orkers ("IA M ") has charged in case 19-C A -32431 thatB oeing has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices prohibited by the N L R A ,and thatthe A cting G eneralC ounselof the N LR B has
issued this C om plaintand N otice of H earing based upon the IA M 's charge.
I.
B oeing lacks inform ation and know ledge sufficientto form a belief as to the
allegations of Paragraph 1,exceptto adm itthat,on or around M arch 29,2010,itreceived by
2.
NLRB-FOIA-00009080
(b).Boeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 2(b),exceptto adm itthatin the
lasttw elve m onths its business operations resulted in gross revenues in excess of$500,000.
(c) Boeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 2(c),exceptto adm itthatduring
the lasttw elve m onths itreceived,shipped,sold and/or purchase goods atits facilities in the
State ofW ashington valued in excess of$50,000 from places outside ofthe State ofW ashington.
(d) Boeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 2(d),exceptto adm itthatitis and
3.
Boeing adm its the allegations ofParagraph 3.
4.
The firstsentence ofParagraph 4 states legalconclusions for w hich no answ er is
required.A s to the rem aining allegations in Paragraph 4,Boeing adm its thatthe
Jam es ("Jim ")F.A lbaugh:E xecutive V ice President,T he B oeing C om pany;
C hiefE xecutive O fficer,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes
Scott C arson: E xecutive V ice President,T he B oeing C om pany; C hief
E xecutive O fficer,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes (untilA ugust2009)
R aym ond L.C onner:V ice Presidentand G eneralM anager ofSupply C hain
M anagem entand O perations,Boeing C om m ercialA irplanes
ScottFancher:V ice Presidentand G eneralM anager,Boeing 787 D ream liner
Program ,Boeing C om m ercialA irplanes
Frederick C .K iga:V ice President,State and LocalG overnm entR elations and
G lobalC orporate C itizenship for the N orthw estR egion,Boeing C om m ercial
A irplanes
NLRB-FOIA-00009081

D ouglas P.K ight:V ice President,H um an R esources,B oeing C om m ercial
A irplanes
W .Jam es ("Jim ")M cN erney,Jr.:C hairm an ofthe Board,President,and
C hiefE xecutive O fficer,T he B oeing C om pany
Jam es Proulx:M anager,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes N ew s and M edia
Patrick ("Pat")Shanahan:V ice Presidentand G eneralM anager,A irplane
Program s,Boeing C om m ercialA irplanes
E ugene W oloshyn:V ice President,L abor R elations,T he B oeing C om pany
5.
(a)T he allegations contained in Paragraph 5(a)state legalconclusions for w hich
no response is required,butto the extenta response is required,Boeing adm its thatthe
production and m aintenance em ployees in W ashington State constituted a "Unit" for collective
(b) The allegations contained in Paragraph 5(b)state legalconclusions for w hich
no response is required,butto the extenta response is required,Boeing adm its thatthe
production and m aintenance em ployees in the Portland,O regon area constitute a "Unit" for
(c) Boeing adm its the allegations ofParagraph 5(c).
(d) Boeing adm its the allegations ofParagraph 5(d).
6.
Boeing denies the introductory sentence to Paragraph 6,and specifically denies
that,it"rem oved" or "had rem oved w ork" from its facilities in Everett,W ashington or Portland,
O regon because Unitem ployees had struck Boeing,and also specifically denies thatitthreatened
or im pliedly threatened thatthose facilities w ould lose additionalw ork in the eventoffuture Unit
strikes.A s to the lettered subparagraphs:
NLRB-FOIA-00009082
(a) Boeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 6(a),exceptto adm itthatits
President,C hairm an and C EO Jam es M cN erney,participated in an earnings conference callon
O ctober 21,2009;and Boeing specifically denies thatM r.M cN erney m ade an "extended
"strikes happening every three or four years in PugetSound." Boeing adm its thatthe referenced
(b) Boeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 6(b),and further states thatthe
(c) Boeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 6(c),exceptto adm itthatthe
(d) Boeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 6(d),exceptto adm itthatthe
2009.
(e) Boeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 6(e),exceptto adm itthata Seattle
Tim es reporter conducted a video-taped interview ofM r.A lbaugh and thatthe tape speaks for
itself.
7.
(a)B oeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 7(a),and specifically denies thatit
transferred the "second 787 D ream liner" assem bly line from its facility in Everett,W ashington to
O ctober 28,2009,B oeing announced thatitw ould place a new second assem bly line for the 787
(b) Boeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 7(b).
(c) B oeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 7(c).
NLRB-FOIA-00009083
(a)B oeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 8(a),and specifically denies thatit
8 .
(b) Boeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 8(b).
(c) Boeing denies the allegations ofParagraph 8(c).
9.
Boeing denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9.
10.
Boeing denies the allegations contained Paragraph 10.
11.
Boeing denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 11.
12.
rem edy soughtby the A cting G eneralC ounseland,accordingly,no response is required.
H ow ever,to the extentthata response m ay be deem ed to be necessary,Boeing denies thatthe
A cting G eneralC ounselis entitled to,or thatthe Board can order the rem edy requested in
Paragraph 12.
13.
(a)Paragraph 13(a)does notallege facts for w hich an answ er is required,but
relates the rem edy soughtby the A cting G eneralC ounseland,accordingly,no response is
required.H ow ever,to the extentthata response m ay be deem ed to be necessary,B oeing denies
thatthe A cting G eneralC ounselis entitled to the rem edy,or thatthe Board can order the rem edy
(b)Paragraph 13(b)does notallege facts for w hich an answ er is required but
m erely describes w hatthe A cting G eneralC ounselsays is notpartofthe rem edy he is seeking.
T6 the extentthata response m ay be deem ed to be necessary,Boeing denies thatthe A cting
effectively cause B oeing's assem bly facility in N orth C harleston to shutdow n.
NLRB-FOIA-00009084
D ated:M ay 4,2011
W illiam J.Ireffferg P.C.
Telephone:202.955.8500
Facsim ile:202.467.0539
R ichard B.H ankins
T elephone:404.527-4000
Facsim ile: 404.527-4198
NLRB-FOIA-00009085
R EG IO N 19
C ase 19-C A -32431
and
w ith
W O R K ER S
R ichard L.A hearn
R egionalD irector
915 Second A venue
M ara-Louise.A nzalone nlrb.gov
10
NLRB-FOIA-00009086
D avid C am pbell
C ounselfor IA M
D A TED this 4thday ofM ay,2011
inierf.D avis
D D avis@ G ibsondunn.com
NLRB-FOIA-00009087
Microsoft Outlook
Carson Glickman-Flora [flora@workerlaw.com]
Todd, Dianne
Carrie Fassler
6, 7(C), 7(D)
Boeing ULP
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
6, 7(C), 7(D)
Hi Dianne,
I spoke again with

but
6, 7(C)
had not, so
I have attached draft declarations
6, 7(C), 7(D)
for your review, and I will bring copies of the referenced exhibits
later than 1:30, and
6, 7(C), 7(D)
6, 7(C), 7(D)
will be there hopefully no
will be there at 3:00 p.m.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this approach.
Thanks,
Carson
The September 2009 meeting with employees where Doug Kight made comments about a second line;
6, 7(C), 7(D)
Whether employees received the October 28, 2009 memo issued to managers
6, 7(C), 7(D)
Whether employees heard the 2009 earnings call
6, 7(C), 7(D)
Boeings December 3, 2009 memo to managers.
6, 7(C), 7(D)
Carson Glickman-Flora | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt, LLP | 206.285.2828 | 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-00009088
6, 7(C), 7(D)
NLRB-FOIA-00009089
6, 7(C), 7(D)
NLRB-FOIA-00009090
6, 7(C), 7(D)
NLRB-FOIA-00009091
6, 7(C), 7(D)
NLRB-FOIA-00009092
6, 7(C), 7(D)
NLRB-FOIA-00009093
6, 7(C), 7(D)
NLRB-FOIA-00009094
Microsoft Outlook
Todd, Dianne
'Carson Glickman-Flora'
6, 7(C), 7(D)
RE: Boeing ULP -
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thanks Carson, Ill be ready at 1:30. Just to clarify, you plan to accompany the witnesses but not sit
in on the affidavits, correct?
From: Carson Glickman-Flora [mailto:flora@workerlaw.com]
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: Carrie Fassler
Subject: Boeing ULP -
6, 7(C), 7(D)
Hi Dianne,
I spoke again with

but
we thought had seen the Doug Kight video,
6, 7(C)
had not, so
6, 7(C), 7(D)
for your review, and I will bring copies of the referenced exhibits
later than 1:30, and
6, 7(C), 7(D)
6, 7(C), 7(D)
will be there hopefully no
Thanks,
Carson
6, 7(C), 7(D)
6, 7(C), 7(D)
6, 7(C), 7(D)

1
NLRB-FOIA-00009095
6, 7(C), 7(D)
NLRB-FOIA-00009096
Microsoft Outlook
Carson Glickman-Flora [flora@workerlaw.com]
Todd, Dianne
RE: Boeing ULP Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thats right.
From: Todd, Dianne [mailto:Dianne.Todd@nlrb.gov]
To: Carson Glickman-Flora
Subject: RE: Boeing ULP -
Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D)
Thanks Carson, Ill be ready at 1:30. Just to clarify, you plan to accompany the witnesses but not sit
in on the affidavits, correct?
From: Carson Glickman-Flora [mailto:flora@workerlaw.com]
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: Carrie Fassler
Subject: Boeing ULP -
Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D)
Hi Dianne,
I spoke again with

but
had not, so
that we thought had seen the Doug Kight video,
Exemption 6, 7(c)
Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D)
for your review, and I will bring copies of the referenced exhibits Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D) will be there hopefully no
later than 1:30,

Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D)

Thanks,
Carson
Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D)
Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D)

1
NLRB-FOIA-00009097
Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D)
Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D)
NLRB-FOIA-00009098
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Tuesday, November 16, 2010 11:54 AM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Pending 787 Boeing case (outsourcing of interior 787 part), 19-CA-32811
I spoke with Boeing attorney Drew Lunt this morning and he informed me that Boeing did not want to
submit information on this case prior to the meeting with the General Counsel on the Advice case (19-
CA-32431).
Non-responsive
Non-responsive
Lunt stated that he would confer with his client.
Dianne
NLRB-FOIA-00009099
Page 1 of 1
W illen , D eb ra L
From : Jude B ryan [bryan@ w orkerlaw .com ]
S ent:
Tuesday,S eptem ber 21, 2010 2:26 PM
To:
W iIlen,D ebra L
C c:
D avid C am pbell; C arson G lickm an-Flora; K athy B arnard
S ubject: IA M A W D istrict Lodge 751 v. B oeing, N LR B R egion 19 C ase N o.19-C A -32431
D ear M s. W illen:
I am the paralegal assisting the attorneys representing the U nion in this m atter. Follow ing is
the contact inform ation for our attorneys:
D avid C am pbell
cam pbell@ w orkerllaw .com
flora@ w orkerlaw .com
K athleen Phair B arnard
barnard@ w orkerlaw .com
S chw erin C am pbell B arnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP
S eattle, W A 98119-3971
(206) 285-2828 (p h o n e)
(206) 378-4132 (fax)
If w e can provide you w ith any additional inform ation on this m atter,please let m e know .
Ju d e B ryan , Paraleg al
IS ch w erin C am p b ell B arn ard lg litzin & L evitt L L P 118 W est M ercer S treet, S te. 400, S eattle, W A 98119-3971;
Ph o n e: 206.285.2828 E xt. 21; F ax: 206-378-4132 I w w w .w orkerlaw .com
T h is co m m u n icatio n is in ten d ed fo r a sp ecific recip ien t an d m ay b e p ro tected b y th e atto rn ey clien t an d w o rk -p ro d u ct p riv ileg e.
If y o u receiv e th is m essag e in erro r :p lease p erm an en tly d elete it an d n o tify th e sen d er.
11/16/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00009100
N A T IOth
N A L L A B O R R E L A T IO N S B O A R D
N A I.I ()N M .
H O U
M il A F IO N S R C A Il1
1099 14 ST R E E T N W
w w w .nlrb.gov
1 (I
M ay 9, 2011
100 N R iversid e M C 5003-6027
C h icag o , IL 60606-1596
D ear M r.Luttig:
R e: T h e B o ein g C o m p an y
C ase 19-C A -32431
This is in response to your M ay 3 letter to m e concerning the above
captioned case.
statem ents in the press about this m atter. N eedless to say, I don't agree w ith
your contentions. There have been num erous conversations betw een m y office
this case so that each party is aw are of the other's position.. The appropriate
___
assertions-is-through -the-developm ent-o fan
dr j h
B oard and ultim ately the C ourts. Finally, w hile our earlier efforts to resolve this
m atter w ere unsuccessful,I still rem ain open to a resolution betw een the parties.
Sinoegel
Lafe/E . S olom on
NLRB-FOIA-00009101
P age 1 of 1
cutailfr4P3
W illen , D eb ra L
From :
Jude B ryan [bryan@ w orkerlaw .com ]
S ent:
T uesday, January 11, 201111:54 A M
To:
W illen, D ebra L
C c:
D avid C am pbell
S ubject: IA M m eeting w ith A G C
M s.VVillen,
In response to your em ailto D ave C am pbell, the follow ing people w illbe attending the m eeting w ith A G C Lafe
S olom on next w eek.
R ichard P . M ichalski, G eneralV ice P resident, IA M A W
C hristopher C orson, G eneralC ounsel, IA M A W
N eilG ladstein, D irector S trategic R esources, IA M A W
M ark B londin, IA M A erospace C oordinator
Tom W roblew ski, P resident, IA M D istrict Lodge 751
C arson G lickm an-Flora, A ttorney
P lease let us know if there is any m ore inform ation you need.
S incerely,
S chw erin C am pbellB arnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP
S eattle, W A 98119
206-285-2828
1/14/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009102
;OF
A L A N W IL S O N
A pril28,2011
D ear M em bers of C ongress:
T oday,A ttorneys G eneral from across the country joined m e in sending the attached letter to L afe
Solom on,A cting G eneral C ounsel of the N ational L abor R elations B oard,regarding the N L R B 's com plaint
against B oeing.T his com plaint is an ill-conceived retaliatory action filed on behalf of the labor unions.
O ur letter calls on the N L R B to im m ediately w ithdraw their com plaint against B oeing and to cease their
attack on our state,our econom y and our right to w ork.
A s stated in the letter,"the N L R B ,through this single proceeding,attem pts to sound the death knell of
the right to w ork.A dditionally,this tenuous com plaint w ill reverberate throughout union and non-union states
alike,as international com panies w ill question the w isdom of locating in a country w here the federal
governm ent interferes in industry w ithout cause or justification."
I sincerely hope that you w ill share our letter w ith your colleagues and w ill join us and in calling upon
M r.Solom on and the N L R B to stop their aggressive actions against South C arolina,our citizens,and our right-
to-w ork.
A s you are aw are,M r.Solom on previously threatened federal litigation against South C arolina,along
w ith A rizona,South D akota,and U tah over the constitutional am endm ents sim ilar to the one 86.2% of South
C arolina voters passed to ensure em ployees m aintained the right to a secret ballot in a union election.T his
w eek,the N L R B announced its intention to go forw ard w ith suits against A rizona and South D akota and that
lim ited resources curtailed its ability to bring action against South C arolina and U tah..
T hank you again for all you do for our state in W ashington and please keep m e and m y office inform ed
of actions in W ashington in support of our efforts to stop the N L R B 's attack on our right to w ork.
Sincerely,
Cilmo
:fiad2D
A lan W ilson
NLRB-FOIA-00009103
Page 1 of 1
A cting G eneral C ounsel L afe .Solom on releases statem ent on B oeing com plaint
W ille n , D e b ra L
F ro m : N L R B U p d a te s
S ent:
M o n d ay, M ay 09, 2011 2:56 P M
W illen, D ebra L
To:
S ubject: A cting G eneralC ounsel Lafe S olom on releases statem ent on B oeing com plaint
C ontact:
O ffice of P ublic A ffairs
202-273-1991
p u tlkin fo g n irb .g o
w iw n lrb .g o v
A c tin g G e n e ra l C o u n s e l L a fe S o lo m o n re le a s e s s ta te m e n t o n B o e in g c o m p la in t
N LR B A cting G eneralC ounselLafe S olom on today responded to inquiries regarding a com plaint issued A pril20 against the
B oeing C om pany w ith the follow ing statem ent:
"C ontrary to certain public statem ents m ade in recent w eeks,there is nothing rem arkable or unprecedented about the com plaint
issued against the B oeing C om pany on A pril20.The com plaint involves m atters of fact and law that are not unique to this case,
and it w as issued only after a thorough investigation in the field,a further carefulreview by our attorneys in W ashington,and an
invitation by m e to the parties to present their case and discuss the possibility of a settlem ent.O nly then did Iauthorize the
com plaint alleging that certain statem ents and decisions by B oeing officials w ere discrim inatory under our statute.
It is im portant to note that'the issuance of a com plaint is just the beginning of a legalprocess,w hich now m oves to a hearing
before an adm inistrative law judge.That hearing,scheduled for June 14 in S eattle,is the appropriate tim e and place to argue the
m erits of the com plaint.The judge's decision can further be appealed to the B oard,and ultim ately to the federalcourts.A t any
point in this process,the parties could reach a settlem ent agreem ent and w e rem ain w illing to participate in any such discussions
at the request of either or both parties.W e hope allinterested parties respect the legalprocess,rather than trying to litigate this
case in the m edia and public arena."
M r.S olom on m ade the sam e point today in a V W _ w ritten resporise.to a letter received earlier this m onth from B oeing G eneral
C ounselJ.M ichaelLuttig.
For m ore inform ation about the N LR B ,please see our w ebsite at N r.6.y.w m jcb..gov.Click bere..W eign_up_for...enallslelivery_of new s
releases and m ore.
C lick here to view this new s release on our w ebsite.
Q uestions? contact.U s
S TA Y C O N N E C T E D :
S U B S C R IB E R S E R V IC E S :
M anage P references I U nsubscribe I

H elp.
SH A R E
G ovD efivery. Inc. sending on behalf of N ationalLabor R elations B oard 1099 14th S treet, N W
W ashington D C 20570 866-667-6572
govoEuVERY'
'
5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009104
N ew sm ax - PrintT em plate
Page 1 of 1
N ew sm ax
D eM in t: L ab or R elation s B oard A ctin g L ik e 'T h u gs'
Th u rsd ay, A p ril 21, 2011 06:48 P M
B y: H iram R elin er
S outh C arolina S en. Jim D eM int said T hursday the N ationalLabor R elations
B oard (N LR B ) com plaint against B oeing for violating federallaw show s the
O bam a adm inistration is against right-to-w ork states and "is acting like a
bunch of thugs."
T he N LR B said W ednesday B oeing violated labor law w hen it decided to
r,A rl, open an assem bly line for its 787 D ream liner
airplanes in a non-union plant in S outh C arolina
instead of at a union factory near its W ashington
state headquarters. T he aerospace giant said it w ill
go forw ard w ith its S outh C arolina plans first
announced tw o years ago w hile it fights the
N LR B com plaint.
"I thought I'd seen it all, but now the adm inistration is acting like a bunch of
thugs," D eM int told F ox N ew s'N ealC avuto T hursday. "T hey are really trying
to bully and intim idate not just B oeing they are attacking every right-to-
w ork state, and in effect w arning every em ployer in the country, if they
happen to decide to m ove to a state w here w orkers are free not to join a
union, that they are going to be harassed and harangued by the N ational
Labor [R elations] B oard.
"T he president has packed this board w ith union guys and now he's going to
try to, I guess, curry union favor before the next election," D eM int continued.
"I'd just thought I'd seen it all I really can't believe they're doing som ething
like this attacking a m ajor em ployer w hen [the president] said they're
trying to create jobs."
C avuto noted the W hite H ouse said it is not involved and it is N LR B issue.
D eM int replied, "the president could stop this it in a second if he w anted
to.
"A nd, frankly, he's the one w ho packed this board, he's the one w ho's
responsible for the w ay they're behaving," D eM int continued. "A nd this is
very m uch like som e of the other agencies attacking, intim idating, bullying
the people w ho are creating jobs in A m erica today.
"B ut this is the w orst of the w orst," he added. "Like you said [B oeing]
announced this tw o years ago, but they are forcing B oeing to spend m illions
of dollars in legalcosts to try and defend their right they didn't m ove a
facility, this is a new one, they've added jobs in W ashington [state] since they
started building this plant in S outh C arolina." .
N ew sm ax. A llrights reserved..
http://w w w .new sm ax.com /PrintT em plate.aspx?nodeid=393722
5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009105
Page 1 of1
W illen , D eb ra L
F rom :
S o p h ir, Ja ym e
S en t:
W e d n e sd a y, A p ril 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 3 :4 1 P M
T o:
W ille n , D e b ra L
S u b ject: F W : S e n a to r G ra h a m 's sta te m e n t
F rom : S olom on, Lafe E.
S en t: W e d n e sd a y, A p ril 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 3 :0 8 P M
T o: K e a rn e y, B a rry J.; S o p h ir, Ja ym e ; M a ttin a , C e le ste J.
S u b ject: F W : S e n a to r G ra h a m 's sta te m e n t
S e n a to r D e M in t is a lle g e d ly g o in g to ca ll m e so m e tim e a fte r 3 :3 0 . I w o u ld like a t le a st o n e p e rso n o n th e ca ll w ith m e
so p le a se le t m e kn o w if yo u w o n 't b e a ro u n d .,
F rom : W agn er, A nth ony R .
S en t: W e d n e sd a y, A p ril 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 3 :0 0 P M
T o: C le e la n d , N a n cy; S o lo m o n , L a fe E .; A h e a rn , R ich a rd L .; M a ttin a , C e le ste J.; G a rza , Jo se
S u b ject: S e n a to r G ra h a m 's sta te m e n t
h ttp ://lg ra h a m .se n a te .g o v/p u b lic/in d e x.cfm ? F u se A ctio n = P re ssR o o m .P re ssR e le a se s& C o n te n tR e co rd _ id = 7 4 1 7 9 e 31-
8 0 2 a -2 3 a d -4 e 6 e -3 b 1 3 9 4 7 3 8 c8 d
Sen ato r G rah am P ress R eleases
C ontact: M eghan H ughes (202-224-5972) or K evin B ishop (864-250-1417)
D ate: 04/20/2011
G raham on N L R B C om plaint against B oeing
W A SH IN G T O N U .S . S e n a to r L in d se y G ra h a m (R -S o u th C a ro lin a ) to d a y m a d e th is sta te m e n t o n th e N a tio n a l
L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd (N L R B ) co m p la in t a g a in st B o e in g .
"T h is is o n e o f th e w o rst e xa m p le s o f u n e le cte d b u re a u cra ts d o in g th e b id d in g o f sp e cia l in te re st g ro u p s th a t I've
e ve r se e n . In th is ca se , th e N L R B is d o in g th e bid d in g o f th e u n io n s at g reat co st to S o u th C aro lin a an d o u r n a tio n 's
econom y.
.
"It m a ke s p e rfe ct se n se fo r a w o rld -cla ss co m p a n y like B o e in g to d ive rsify th e ir p ro d u ctio n ca p a b ilitie s. B o e in g
m a d e a so lid b u sin e ss d e cisio n in co m in g to S o u th C a ro lin a , a n d w e w e lco m e th e m w ith o p e n a rm s. T h e y co u ld
h a ve g o n e a n yw h e re , b u t th e y kn e w th a t S o u th C a ro lin a w a s a g re a t p la ce to d o b u sin e ss. T h e ir d e cisio n to o p e n
th e ir n e w fa cility in N o rth C h a rle sto n w ill p a y d ivid e n d s fo r th e co m p a n y, its w o rke rs, a n d o u r sta te fo r m a n y ye a rs to
co m e . It's a d e cisio n th a t w ill sta n d th e te st o f tim e .
"If su cce ssfu l, th e N L R B co m p la in t w o u ld a llo w u n io n s to h o ld a virtu a l 've to 'o ve r b u sin e ss d e cisio n s. L e ft to th e ir
o w n d e vice s, th e N L R B w o u ld ro u tin e ly p u n ish rig h t-to -w o rk sta te s th a t va lu e a n d p ro m o te th e ir p ro -b u sin e ss
clim a te s. T h e cu rre n t m a ke u p o f th e N L R B B o a rd h a s b e e n ske w e d a g a in st b u sin e ss. T h is a ctio n w ill n o t b e
allo w ed to stan d.
"I w o u ld b e su rp rise d if a n y co u rt re co g n ize d th e le g itim a cy o f th is co m p la in t. It's p re tty e a sy to se e th a t a t its h e a rt,
th is is a b o u t u n io n p o litics. A s S e n a to r, I w ill d o e ve ryth in g in m y p o w e r, in clu d in g in tro d u cin g le g isla tio n cu ttin g o ff
fu n d in g fo r th is w ild g o o se ch a se , to sto p th e N L R B 's frivo lo u s co m p la in t."
#####
5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009106
H aley: N ew SC labor chief to fight SC B oeing union - W IS N ew s 10 - C olum bia,South C ...Page 1 of 1
H e a lth A le rt
H e a lth N O W
t,
itW ffio r s N O W
dpuN O W
' lo b L in t, R e a l E v ta te
W IS W h e e lv ,v ..,O b itu a rle s
M id la n d s M a rk e tp la c tiO W ,
'
H a ley : N ew S c la b o r ch ief to fig h t S C B o ein g u n io n
Posted: D ec 08, 2010 8:25 A M E S T
U pdated: D ec 08, 2010 3:03 PM E S T
C O L U M B IA , S c (A P ) - S ou th C arolin a G ov.-elect N ik k i H aley says h er n ew C ab in et p ick to ru n th e state's lab or
agen cy w ill lead efforts to figh t u n ion s, p articu larly at B oein g's n ew N orth C h arleston p lan t.
H aley said W ed n esd ay th e state D ep artm en t of L ab or, L icen sin g an d R egU lation w ill p lay a b ig role in k eep in g
u n io n s o u t o f th e B o ein g C o . p la n t th a t a ssem b les th e co m p a n y 's n ew 7 8 7 D rea m lin er. H a ley n o tes d irecto r
n om in ee C ath erin e T em p leton , a law yer w h o h as sp ecialized In u n ion figh ts, h as fou gh t U n ited A u to W ork er
organ izin g attem p ts.
" S h e is rea d y for th e ch allen g e," H aley sa id . " S h e k n o w s w h a t it ta k es to ta k e it o n a n d sh e u n d ersta n d s it's go in g
to b e a p a rtn ersh ip lev el th a t w e ca n n o t lo se. W ere g o in g to fig h t th e u n io n s a n d I n eed ed a p a rtn er to h elp m e d o
it. S h e's th e righ t p erson to h elp m e d o it."
T h e In tern ation al A ssociation of M ach in ists says it h asn 't given u p on organ izin g th e N orth C h arleston p lan t.
W o rk ers th ere v o ted a g a in st u n io n rep resen ta tio n in S ep tem b er 2 0 0 9 . " L a st I ch eck ed , th e rig h t to o rg a n ize w a s
p rotected u n d er fed eral law ," said F ran k L ark in , a sp ok esm an for th e U p p er M arlb oro, M d .-b ased u n ion .
S ou th C arolin a's an ti-u n ion rep u tation w as k ey to last year's d ecision b y C h icago-b ased B oein g to exp an d its
a ssem b ly o p era tio n h ere. In 2 0 0 9 , o n ly tw o o th er sta tes h a d sm a ller sh a re o f u n io n ized w o rk ers th a n S o u th
C arolin a's 5.4 p ercen t, accord in g to th e B u reau of L ab or S tatistics.
B efore B oein g's b oard d ecid ed to exp an d th e N orth C h arleston op eration , it u sed th e th reat of th e p lan t in
b argain in g w ith th e m ach in ists u n ion . T h e u n ion w aged an eigh t-w eek strik e last year th a t sh u t d ow n th e
com p an y's P u get S ou n d assem b ly lin e in W ash in gton .
In m y ex p erien ce I h a v e fo u n d th ere is n o t o n e co m P a n y th a t o p era tes m o re efficien tly w h en y o u p u t a n o th er
layer of b u reau cracy in ," T em p leton said . " W e w ill d o everyth in g w e can to w ork w ith B oein g an d m ak e su re th at
th eir w ork force is tak en care of, th at th ey ru n efficien tly an d th at w e d on 't ad d an yth in g u n n ecessarily."
C ath erin e T em p leton (S ou rce:
O gletree D eak in s)
;F.J C lick im age to en large
H aley said T em p leton w ill also lead stream lin in g efforts at th e agen cy, in clu d in g red u cin g th e tim e it tak es to get
p ro fessio n a l a n d b u sin ess-rela ted licen ses. " W e'v e g o t slo w n ess. W e'v e g o t reg u la to ry issu es th a t a re n o t w o rk in g
w ell a n d so w e n eed so m eo n e th a t's g o in g to g o in th ere a n d clea n th is u p ," H a ley sa id .
T em p leton is th e secon d C ab in et n om in ee th at th e state S en ate w ill con sid er for con firm ation after it retu rn s in Jan u ary. O n M on d ay, H aley said
B M W execu tiv e an d fo rm er n ew sp ap er ed ito r B ob b y H itt w a s h er ch o ice for state co m m erce secreta ry, ov erseein g eco n om ic d ev elop m en t effo rts
at th e C om m erce D ep artm en t.
R ep u b lican H aley tak es office in Jan u ary rep lacin g ou tgoin g G O P G ov. M ark S an ford , w h o leaves office u n d er th e states tw o term lim it.
C o p yrig h t 2010 T h e A sso ciated Press. A ll rig h ts reserved .
GN I
CLICK HERE toreceive
1$20 O FF your w indshield repair!
W IM P Insurauce)
dikW o R L D I'q u w
A ll c o n te n t e C o p y rig h t 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 1 0 W o rld N o w a n d W IS T V , a R a v c o m M e d ia S ta tio n .
A ll R ig h ts R eserved . F o r m o re in fo rm atio n o n th is site, P lease read o u r P rivacy P o licy an d T erm s o f S ervice.
http://w w w .w istv.cotn/G lobal/story.asp?S=13636166& clienttype=printable
12/9/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00009107
G IB SO N D U N N
W illiam J. K ilberg P .C ., P artner
D irect 2 02.95 5.8573 M obile 2 02.250 .9701
w kilbergO gibsondunn.com F a x 2 0 2 .5 3 0 .9 5 5 9
1050 C onnecticut A venue, N W ., W ashington, D .C . 20036-5306
T el 202.955.8500 w w w .gibsondunn.com
NLRB-FOIA-00009108
R ichard B .H ankins
M eK enna L ong
& A ldridge.
A ttorneys at L aw
303 P eachtree Street,N E
S u ite 5300
A tlanta, G A 30308
404.527.8372
F ax: 404.527.7088
C ell: 770 .3 3 5 .78 5 7
rhankins@ m ckennalong.com
w w w .m ckennalong.com
NLRB-FOIA-00009109
.E-r couivgji4s
P age 1 of 1
W illen,D ebra L
From : V V illen, D ebra L
Sent:
M onday,N ovem ber 08,2010 10:31 A M
To:
Szapiro,M iriam
Subject: B oeing C ounsel
From uibson,uunn:
BillKillberg
PaulB lankenstein (ER ISA atty)
M itt M cG ill(Suprem e C ourt litigator)
C hris M artin (by phone from C alifornia)
From A tlanta:
R ichard H ankins
From B oeing:
B ryan Paum eister (by phone)
11/16/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00009110
N L R B issues com plaint against B oeing C om pany for unlaw fully transferring w ork to a no...Page 1 of 2
W illen,D ebra L
From : N L R B Updates
Sent:
W ednesday,A pril20,2011 2:46 P M
VVillen,D ebra L
To:
Subject:N LR B issues com plaint against B oeing C om pany for unlaw fully transferring w ork to a non-union
facility
A pril 20,2011
C ontact:
O ffice of Public A ffairs
202-273-1991
publicinfo@ nlrb.gov
w w w .nlrb.gov
N L R B issues com plaint against B oeing C om pany for unlaw fully transferring w ork to a non-union
facility
N L R B A cting G eneral C ounsel L afe Solom on today issued a com plaint against the B oeing C om pany
alleging that it violated federal labor law by deciding to transfer a second production line to a non-union
facility in South C arolina for discrim inatory reasons.
B oeing announced in 2007 that it planned to assem ble seven 787 D ream liner airplanes per m onth in the
Puget Sound area of W ashington state,w here its em ployees have long been represented by the
International A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers.T he com pany later said that it w ould
create a second production line to assem ble an additional three planes a m onth to address a grow ing -
backlog of orders.In O ctober 2009,B oeing announced that it w ould locate that second line at the non-
union facility.
In repeated statem ents to em ployees and the m edia,com pany executives cited the unionized em ployees'
past strike activity and the possibility of strikes occurring som etim e in the future as the overriding
factors in deciding to locate the second line in the non-union facility.
T he N L R B launched an investigation of the transfer of second line w ork in response to charges filed by
the M achinists union and found reasonable cause to believe that B oeing had violated tw o sections of the
N ational L abor R elations A ct because its statem ents w ere coercive to em ployees and its actions w ere
m otivated by a desire to retaliate for past strikes and chill future strike activity.
"A w orker's right to strike is a fundam ental right guaranteed by the N ational L abor R elations A ct," M r.
Solom on said."W e also recognize the rights of em ployers to m ake business decisions based on their
econom ic interests,but they m ust do so w ithin the law .I have w orked w ith the parties to encourage
settlem ent in the hope of avoiding costly litigation,and m y door rem ains open to that possibility."
T o rem edy the alleged unfair labor practices,the A cting G eneral C ounsel seeks an order that w ould
require B oeing to m aintain the second production line in W ashington state.T he com plaint does not seek
closure of the South C arolina facility,nor does it prohibit B oeing from assem bling planes there.
A bsent a settlem ent betw een the parties,the next step in the process w ill be a hearing before an N L R B
5/2/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009111
N L R B issues com plaint against B oeing C om pany for unlaw fully transferring w ork to a no...Page 2 of 2
adm inistrative law judge in Seattle,set for June 14,at w hich both parties w ill have an opportunity to
presenteyidence and argum ents.
C lick here to view a factsheet.
C lick here to view this new s release on our w ebsite.
For m ore inform ation about the N ational L abor R elations B oard,please see our w ebsite at
w w w .nlrb.gov.
Q uestions? C ontactU s
S TA Y C O N N E C TE D :
tp l
--
v iv
S U B S C R IB E R S E R V IC E S :
M anage P referenceiI
U nsubscribe I H e lp
;11 SH A R E.
..
G ovD elivery. Inc. sending on behalf of N ationalLabor R elations B oard 100 14th S treet,
N W . W ashington D C 20570 866-667..6572
govonIVERY
5/2/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009112
Page 1 of 2
/.
W illen,D ebra L
Fro m : Fu llerto n , L aw ren ce [lfu llerto n @ sid ley.co m ]
S ent:
Thursday, A pril 21, 2011 8:17 A M
To:
W illen, D ebra L
S u bject: N Y T im es coverage
N ew Y ork T im es
A pril 20,2011
L ab or B oard T ells B oein g N ew F actory B reak s L aw
By
siEyeticB gEviip.usg
In w hat m ay be the strongest signal yet of the new pro-labor orientation of the N ational L abor R elationsloand under Pre4i4ent.f)bam a,the agency
filed a com plaint W ednesday seeking to force B oeing to bring an airplane production line back to its unionized facilities in W ashington State instead of
m oving the w ork to a nonunion plant in South C arolina.
In its com plaint,the labor board said that B oeing's decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 D rearnliner passenger plane to South
C arolina w as m otivated by an unlaw ful desire to retaliate against union w orkers for their past strikes in W ashington and to discourage future strikes.
T he agency's acting general counsel,L afe Solom on,said it w as illegal for com panies to take actions in retaliation against w orkers for exercising the
right to strike.
A lthough m anufacturers have long m oved plants to nonunion states,the board noted that B oeing officials had,in internal docum ents and new s
interview s,specifically cited the strikes and potential future strikes as a reason for their
2 0 0 9 decision to expand in South C arolina.
B oeing said it w ould "vigorously contest" the labor board's com plaint."T his claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both
N .L .R .B .and Suprem e C ourt precedent," said J.M ichael L uttig,a B oeing executive vice president and its general counsel."B oeing has every right
under both federal law and its collective bargaining agreem ent to build additional U .S.production capacity outside of the Puget Sound region."
It is highly unusual for the federal governm ent to seek to reverse a corporate decision as im portant as the location of plant.
B ut ever since a D em ocratic m ajority took control of the five-m em ber board after M r.O bam a's election,the board has signaled that it w ould seek to
adopt a m ore liberal,pro-union tilt after years of pro-em ployer decisions under President B ush.
A lthough the board has not yet issued m any m ajor decisions reversing B ush-era policies,it has begun requiring private sector em ployers to post a
notice about w orkers'right to unionize,and M r.Solom on has begun m oving m ore aggressively to w in reinstatem ent of union supporters fired illegally
by m anagem ent during unionization drives.
In a statem ent W ednesday,M r.Solom on said: "A w orker's right to strike is a fundam ental right guaranteed by the N ational L abor R elations A ct.W e
also recognize the rights of em ployers to m ake business decisions based on their econom ic interests,but they m ust do so w ithin the law ."
South C arolina's tw o senators,both R epublicans,L indsey G rO arn and Jim D eM ins,denounced the board's m ove."T his is nothing m ore than a
political favor for the unions w ho are supporting President O bam a's re-election cam paign," M r.D eM int said.
T he labor board said that in 2007,B oeing announced plans to create a second production line that w ould m ake three 787 D ream liner planes a m onth
in the Puget Sound area to address a grow ing backlog of orders.T hat w as to be in addition to a line already m aking seven D ream liners a m onth there.
In O ctober.2009,B oeing said it w ould locate its second line at a new ,nonunion plant in South C arolina.
T he N .L .R .B .asserted that on num erous occasions B oeing officials had com m unicated an unlaw ful m otive for transferring the production line,
including an interview w ith T he Seattle T im es in w hich a B oeing executive said,"T he overriding factor w as not the business clim ate.A nd it w as not the
w ages w e're paying today.It w as that w e cannot afford to have a w ork stoppage,you know ,every three years."
5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009113
Page 2 of 2
M r. S olom on brought the com plaint after a union representing m any of B oeing's W ashington w orkers, the Internatirm alA m pla.110n...91.M A chinig
AP TO R M W Q rkers., com plained that B oeing had decided to m ove production to S outh C arolina largely in retaliation for a 58-day strike in 2008.
"B oeing's decision to build a 787 assem bly line in S outh C arolina sent a m essage that B oeing w orkers w ould suffer financial harm for exercising their
collective bargaining rights," said the union's vice president, R ich M ichalski.
M r. S olom on said that if he failed to settle the dispute, an adm inistrative judge w ould begin hearing the case on June 14 in S eattle. M r. S olom on said he
w as not seeking to close the S outh C arolina factory or prohibit B oeing from assem bling planes there.
B oeing criticized the tim ing of the N .L .R .B .'s com plaint, saying it cam e w hen construction of the factory in N orth C harleston, S .C ., w as nearly com plete
and after 1,000 em ployees had already been hired there.
B oeing said on W ednesday that none of the production jobs in S outh C arolina had com e at the expense ofjobs in W ash ington. It noted th at its
unionized em ploym ent in the Puget S ound area had increased by 2 ,0 0 0 since it anno unced its decision to expand in S outh C aro lina.
T he com pany also said it had decided to expand in S outh C arolina in part to protect business continuity and to reduce the dam age to its finances and
reputation from future w ork stoppages.
IR S C ircular 230 D isclosure:To com ply w ith certain U .S.Treasury regulations,w e inform you
that,unless expressly stated otherw ise,any U .S.federaltax advice contained in this
com m unication,including attachm ents,w as notintended or w ritten to be used,and cannotbe
used,by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding any penalties thatm ay be im posed on such
taxpayer by the InternalR evenue Service.In addition,if any such tax advice is used or referred
to by other parties in prom oting,m arketing or recom m ending any partnership or other entity,
investm entplan or arrangem ent,then (i) the advice should be construed as w ritten in connection
w ith the prom otion or m arketing by others of the transaction(s) or m atter(s) addressed in this
com m unication and (ii) the taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular
circum stances from an independenttax advisor.
****************************************************************************************************
This e-m ailis sentby a law firm and m ay contain inform ation thatis privileged or confidential.
If you are notthe intended recipient,please delete the e-m ailand any attachm ents and notify us
im m ediately.
* * * * * * * * *
* * *
* * * * *****
** * * * * * * * *
* * **
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009114
B oeing C om plaint Fact Sheet
.Page 1 of 5
Published on N L R B (http://w w w .rilrb.goy )
H om e > B oeing C om plaint Fact S heet
B oein g C om p lain t F act S h eet
O n A pril 20, 2011, the A cting G eneral C ounsel of the N ational Labor
R elations B oard issued a com plaint against the B oeing C om pany alleging
that it violated federal labor law by deciding to transfer a second airplane
production line from a union facility in the state of W ashington to a non-union
facility in S outh C arolina for discrim inatory reasons. A hearing has been set
for June 14, 2011 in S eattle before an adm inistrative law judge.
C lick h ere to see a n ew s release m about the com plaint, and h ere to see a
copy of the full com plaint pi.
C lick h ere to view B oeing's response to the com plaint pi.
T h e C h arg e an d C o m p lain t
O n M arch 26, 2010, the International A ssociation of M achinists and
A erospace W orkers, D istrict Lodge 751, filed a charge w ith the N LR B
alleging that the B oeing C om pany had engaged in m ultiple unfair labor
practices related to its decision to place a second production line for the 787
D ream liner airplane in a non-union facility.
S pecifically, the union charged that the decision to transfer the.line w as
m ade to retaliate against union em ployees for participating in past strikes
and to chill future strike activity, w hich is protected under the N ational Labor
R elations A ct.
The union also charged that the com pany violated the N ational Labor
R elations A ct by failing to negotiate over the decision to transfer the
production line.The M achinists'union has represented B oeing C om pany
em ployees in the Puget S ound area of W ashington, w here the planes are
http://w w w .nlrb.gov/print/443
5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009115
Boeing C om plaintFactSheet
Page 2 of 5
assem bled,since 1936,and in Portland,O regon,w here som e airplane parts
are m ade,since 1975.
Throughout the investigation of the charge,N LR B officials m et w ith both
parties in efforts to facilitate a settlem ent agreem ent.The overw helm ing
m ajority of N LR B charges found to have m erit are settled by agreem ent.
A lthough no settlem ent w as reached and,the A gency w as com pelled to
pursue litigation,the A cting G eneralC ounselrem ains open to a resolution .
betw een the parties.
The com plaint issued by the A cting G eneralC ounsel (19-C A -32431 [41)
alleges that B oeing violated tw o sections of the N ationalLabor R elations A ct
by m aking coercive statem ents and threats to em ployees for engaging in
statutorily protected activities,and by deciding to place the second line at a
non-union facility,and establish a parts supply program nearby,in retaliation
for past strike activity and to chillfuture strike activity by its union em ployees.
The investigation found that B oeing officials com m unicated the unlaw ful
m otivation in m ultiple statem ents to em ployees and the m edia.For exam ple,
a senior B oeing officialsaid in a videotaped interview w ith the S eattle Tim es
new spaper: "The overriding factor (in transferring the line) w as not the
business clim ate.A nd it w as not the w ages w e're paying today..It w as that
w e cannot afford to have a w ork stoppage,you know ,every three years."
The com plaint also alleges that B oeing's actions w ere "inherently destructive
of the rights guaranteed em ployees by S ection 7 of the A ct[51."
The investigation did not find m erit to the union's charge that B oeing failed to
bargain in good faith over its decision regarding the second line.A lthough a
decision to locate unit w ork w ould typically be a m andatory subject of
bargaining,in this case,the union had w aived its right to bargain on the
issue in its collective bargaining agreem ent w ith B oeing.
T.he Law and S upporting C ases
The N LR B enforces the N ationalLabor R elations A ct,w hich guarantees
em ployees the right to organize and collectively bargain,or to refrain from
doing so.A pplicable Sections of the A ct follow :
R IG H TS O F E M PLO Y E E S
http://vvw w .nlrb.gov/print/443
5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009116
Page 3 of 5
S ection 7 [5]. E m ployees shallhave the right to self-organization,to form ,
join,or assist labor organizations,to bargain collectively through
representatives of their ow n choosing,and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other m utualaid or
protection,and shallalso have the right to refrain from any or allsuch
activities...
R IG H T TO S TR IK E
S ection 13 [61: N othing in this A ct ...shallbe construed so as either to
interfere w ith or im pede or dim inish in any w ay the right to strike or to affect
the lim itations or qualifications on that right.
U N FA IR LA B O R PR A C TIC E S (relevant sections)
S ection 8(a) m it shallbe an unfair labor practice for an em ployer
(1) to interfere w ith,restrain,or coerce em ployees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in section 7;
(3) by discrim ination in regard to hire or tenure of em ploym ent or any term or
condition of em ploym ent to encourage or discourage m em bership in any
labor organization
C ases:
O n the 8(a)(1) charge:
The U .S .S uprem e C ourt delineated the line betw een protected em ployer
speech versus unlaw fulem ployer speech under the N LR A in N LR B v.G issel
Packing C orp.,395 U S 575,618 (1969),. [8]
In G eneralE lectric C om pany,215 N LR B 520 (1974) [9],the N ationalLabor
R elations B oard applied the G isseltest to set aside an election because the
em ployer,citing concerns about possible future strikes,stated that the
plant's nonunion status w as a prim ary factor in choosing to locate a
production line for a new m otor there.In its decision,the B oard distinguished
an em ployer's right to take defensive action w hen threatened w ith an
im m inent strike from threats to transfer w ork "m erely because of the
possibility of a strike at som e speculative future date."
S ince then,the B oard has repeatedly held that an em ployer violates section
8(a)(1) by threatening that em ployees w illlose their jobs if they join a strike,
or by predicting a loss of business and jobs because of unionization or strike
5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009117
Page 4 of 5
disruptions w ithout any factualbasis.In contrast,the B oard has found that
em ployers m ay law fully relate concerns raised by custom ers (C urw ood.Inc.,
339 N LR B 1137 (2003)[1 0 ]. They m ay also reference the possibility that
unionization,including strikes,m ight harm relationships w ith consum ers,as
opposed to predicting "unavoidable consequences."M iller Industries Tow ing
E quipm ent,Inc.,342 N LR B 1074, 1075-76 (2004) nh
O n the 8(a)(3) charge:
A n em ployer's discouragem ent of its em ployees'participation in a legitim ate
strike constitutes discouragem ent of union m em bership w ithin the m eaning
of this section.This applies to em ployer conduct designed to retaliate
against em ployees for having engaged in a strike in the past (C apehorn
Industry,336 N LR B 364 (2001) [12]w here the em ployer failed to reinstate
strikers w hen there w as no legitim ate business justification for perm anently
subcontracting the w ork),as w ellas em ployer conduct designed to forestall
em ployees from exercising their right to strike in the future (C entury A ir
Freight, 284 N LR B 730 (1987) m w here em ployer perm anently
subcontracted unit w ork and discharged em ployees in order to forestallthe
exercise of their right to strike; and W estpac E lectric,321 N LR B 1322 (1996)
[14], w here em ployer isolated em ployee in retaliation for previous and
anticipated future strike activities).In N ationalFabricators ii295 N LR B 1095
(1989),w here potentialstrikers w ere targeted for layoffs,the B oard held that
"disfavoring em ployees w ho w ere likely to strike,is the kind of coercive
discrim ination that...discourages...protected activity."
N ext S teps
It is im portant to note that the com plaint states allegations by the A cting
G eneralC ounselthat the em ployer has com m itted unfair labor practices.
The B oard has m ade no findings on these allegations.The next step in the
process w illbe a hearing before an N LR B adm inistrative law judge,
scheduled for June 14 at the N LR B 's S eattle office [1 5 ]. A t the hearing,both
parties w illhave an opportunity to present evidence and argue in favor of
their position.The decision of the judge m ay be appealed to the B oard in
W ashington by the filing of exceptions by either party.The B oard's decision
could further be appealed to a federalcourt of appeals and then to the U .S .
S uprem e C ourt.C lick here for a flow chart of the N LR B process. [1 6 ]
This fact sheet w as posted on 4/20/2011 and w illbe updated periodically.
5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009118
U N ITE D S TA TE S O F A M E R IC A
B E FO R E TH E N A TIO N A L LA B O R R E LA TIO N S B O A R D
R E G IO N 19
TH E B O E IN G C O M P A N Y
C ase 19-C A -32431
and
. C O M P L A IN T A N D N O T IC E O F H E A R IN G
Lodge N o. 751 ("Local 751" or the "Union"), affiliated w ith International A ssociation of
M achinists and A erospace W orkers ("IA M "), has charged in C ase 19-C A -32431 that
The B oeing C om pany ("R espondent" or "B oeing"), has been engaging in unfair labor
practices as set forth in the N ationalLabor R elations A ct (the "A ct"),29 U.S .C . 151 et
seq.
B ased th ereo n , th e A ctin g G en eral C o u n sel o f th e N atio n al L ab o r
R elations B oard (the "B oard"),by the undersigned,pursuant to 10(b) of the A ct and
102.15 of the B oard's R ules and R egulations, issues this C om plain t an d N otice of
1.
The C harge w as filed by the Union on M arch 26,2010,and w as served on
R espondent by regular m ailon or about M arch 29,2010.
NLRB-FOIA-00009119
2.
(a)
in C hicago, Illinois, m anufactures and produces m ilitary and com m ercial aircraft at
areas.
(b )
(c)
(d )
3.
T h e U n io n is, an d h as b een at all m aterial tim es, a lab o r o rg an izatio n
4.
op posite their respective nam es and h ave been su pervisors w ithin the m eaning o f
-2 -
NLRB-FOIA-00009120
2(11) of the A ct, and/or agents w ithin the m eaning of 2(13) of the A ct, acting on
behalf of R espondent:
Jim A lbaugh
Executive Vice President,B oeing; President
A irplanes (as of late A ugust 2009)
Executive Vice President,B oeing; C EO ,B oeing
C om m ercialA irplanes (untillate A ugust 2009)
Scott C arson
R ay C onner
Scott Fancher
Program
Fred K iga
R elations
D oug K ight
Jim M cN erney
Jim Proulx
B oeing spokesm an
P at S hanahan
G en e W o lo sh yn
A irplane Program s
5.
(a)
alia, allproduction and m aintenance em ployees in W ashington S tate,constitute a unit
A ct (the "Puget Sound Unit").
(b )
the collective bargaining agreem ent described below in paragraph 5(c),including,

inter
-3 -
NLRB-FOIA-00009121
alia, allproduction and m aintenance em ployees in the Portland,O regon area,constitute
ofthe A ct(the "Portland Unit").
(C)
Septem ber 8,2012.
(d)
6.
the U nit because em ployees had struck and R espondent threatened or im pliedly
threatened that the Unit w ould lose additionalw ork in the event of future strikes:
(a) O ctober 21, 2009, by M cN erney in a quarterly earnings conference
extended statem ent regarding "diversifying [R espondent's] labor pool and labor
happening every three to four years in Puget Sound."
-4 -
NLRB-FOIA-00009122
(b )
O ctob er 28, 2009: based on its O ctober 28, 2009, m em o randum
entitled "787 S econd Line,Q uestions and A nsw ers for M anagers," inform ed em ployees,
am ong other things,that its decision to locate the second 787 D ream liner lihe in S outh
(c)
the S eattle Tim es,attributed R espondent's 787 D ream liner production decision to use a
line to past Unit strikes.
1/4
(d)
C arolina line to past Unit strikes.
(e)
w o rk o p p o rtu n itie s b e c a u s e o f s u c h s trik e s .
7.
(a)
In or about O ctober 2009, on a date better know n to R espondent,
bu t no later than O ctob er 28, 2009, R espond ent d ecid ed to transfer its seco nd 787
N orth C harleston,S outh C arolina.
-5 -
NLRB-FOIA-00009123
(b )
7(a) because the Unit em ployees assisted and/or supported the Union by,
inter alia,
and/or other em ployees from engaging in these or other union and/or protected,
(c)
8.
(a)
(b )
8(a) because the Unit em ployees assisted and/or supported the Union by,
inter alia,
and/or other em ployees from engaging in these or other union and/or protected,
(c)
-6 -
NLRB-FOIA-00009124
9.
interfering w ith, restraining, and coercing em ployees in the exercise of the rights
10.
11.
12.
A s part of the rem edy for the unfair labor practices alleged herein,the
A cting G eneral C ounsel seeks an O rder requiring either that one of the high level
B oeing official, any notice that issues in this m atter, and requiring R espondent to
13.
(a)
-7 -
NLRB-FOIA-00009125
in the State of W ashington,utilizing supply lines m aintained by the Unit in the Seattle,
(b)
South C arolina,facility.
R espondent is notified that, pursuant to 102.20 and 102.21 of the
m ust be received b y th is office on o r b efore M ay 4, 2011, or p ostm a rk ed on or
b efore M ay 3, 2011. Unless filed electronically in a pdf form at,R espondent should file
A n answ er m ay also be filed electronically by using the E-Filing system on
the A gency's w ebsite.In order to file an ,.answ er electronically,access the A gency's
w ebsite at w w w .n irb .ao v, click o n F ile C ase D o cu m en ts, en ter th e N L R B C ase
N um ber,and follow the detailed instructions.The responsibility for the receipt and
usability of the answ er rests exclusively upon the sender.Unless notification on the
determ ined to be in technicalfailure because it is unable to rebeive docum ents for a
-8 -
NLRB-FOIA-00009126
by the party if not represented.S ee 102.21.If the answ er being filed electronically is
R egionalO ffice by traditionalm eans w ithin three (3) business days after the date of
electronic filing.
Service of the answ er on each of the other parties m ust be accom plished
Judgm ent,that the allegations in this C om Plaint are true.
N O TIC E O F H E A R IN G
P LE A S E TA K E N O T IC E TH A T on the 14 th d ay o f Ju n e, 2011, at 9:00
a.m ., in Jam es C . S an d H earin g R o o m , 2966 Jackso n F ed eral B u ild in g , 915
S econd ,A venue, S eattle, W ashington, and on consecutive days thereafter until
concluded,a .hearing w illbe conducted before an A dm inistrative Law Judge of the
-9 -
NLRB-FOIA-00009127
this com plaint. The procedures to be follow ed at the hearing are described in the
D A T E D at Seattle,W ashington,this 20 th day of A pril,2011.
R ichard L.A hearn,R egionalD irector '
915 S econd A venue
10-
NLRB-FOIA-00009128
J. M ichael t.uttig
V ico.President &
E xc
Cr..,..eral C r:tim e!
M C 5003.6027
C raQ o. ft. 60606- i596
M ay 3.2011
ASP AR SP AW
L ate E . Solom on, E squire
A cting G eneral c ounsel
D ear M r.Solom on:
I w rite regarding statem ents in your com plaint and elsew here--including
statem ents attributed to you in the :V ew York M ilos on A pril 23 about B oeinies
these statem ents, w hich are critical to your ease against B oeing,fundam entally
the C om pany. Y ou have a responsibility to correct these m isquotations and
have filed.T hrough these m isquotations and m ischara.cterizations,you have clone a
grave disservice to T he B oeing C om pany. its executives and shareholders, and to the
160.000 t3ocing em ployees w orldivide. A nd, of course. you have tiled a com plaint
Your Statem ent T hat B oeing "T ransji4rred" U nion W ork
A s an initial m atter, repeatedstatem ents in the com plaint allege, that B oeing
"rem oved w ork" from Puget Sound (1i6), -decided to lrons.fer its second 787
D ream liner production line" to South C arolina (17(4), and "decided to m -m sfer a
sourcing supply program " to S outh C arolina (W O ). Y our A pril 20 press release
m akes the sam e assertion: "T he N L R B launched an investigation of the tra n skr of
second line w ork in response to charges tiled by he N rktelltiliStS union and found
reasonable cause to believe that B oeing had violated tw o sections orthe N ational
L abor R elations A ct.-
A S yO u w ell know ,no w ork.none at all----w as -rem oved" or "transferred"
front Puget Sound. T he second line for the 787 is a new final assem bly line. A s it
did 1101 previously exist in Puget Sound or elsew here,the second assem bly line could
not have been -rem oved" from , -transferred" or otherw ise "m oved - to South
C arolina. Sim ply put, the w ork that is and w ill be done at our C harleston, Sm ith
C arolina linal'assem bly facility is new w ork, required and added in response to the
historic custom er dem and for the 787. N o m em ber of the International A ssociation of
M achinists'union (1A M ) in Puget Sound has lost his or her job,or otherw ise SU frerC d--....
NLRB-FOIA-00009129
an y ad v erse em p lo y m en t actio n , as a resu lt o f th e p lacem en t o f th is n ew w o rk in th e
S tate o f S o u th C aro lin a.
Y o u r o w n R eg io n al D irecto r, w h o se o ffice y o u h av e task ed w ith p ro secu tin g
th is case, u n d erstan d s th at, an d h as accu rately an d p u b licly d escrib ed th e m atter
d ifferen tly th an y o u . A s th e S eattle T im es rep o rted last y ear, "R ich ard A b eam , th e
N L .R 1 3 reg io n al d irecto r in v estig atin g th e co m p lain t, said it w o u ld h av e b een an easier
ease fo r th e u n io n to arg u e if -B o ein g h ad m o v ed ex istin g w o rk fro m E v erett, rath er
th an p lacin g n ew N v o rk in C h arlesto n ." D o m in ic G a te s. .M a ch in ists F ile U n fa ir L a b o r
C h a rg e :Ig a in st B o e in g o ve r C h a rle sto n , S eattle T im es. Ju n e 4 , 2 0 1 0 .
9firiZ A L L 7 P tid a
S in ce n o actu al w o rk w as "tran sferred ," it n o w ap p ears th at N L R B o lticials
are alread y . v ia p u b lic statem en ts, tran sfO rm in g th e th eo ry o f th e co m p lain t to say
th at, b ecau se B o ein g co m m itted to th e S tate o f W ash in g to n th at it w o u ld b u ild all o f
th e C o m p an y 's 7 $ 7 s in th at state, th e b u ild in eo f airp lan es in S o u th C aro lin a
co n stitu tes "tran sferred " w o rk o r w o rk "rem o v ed ." T h u s. o n A p ril 2 6 , an N L R B
sp o k esw o m an , N an cy C leelan d , ap p aren tly to ld a n ew s o rg an izatio n th at "th e ch arg e
th at B o ein g is tran sferrin g w o rk aw ay fro m u n io n em p lo y ees stem s fro m th e
co m p an y 's o rig in al co m m itm en t to th e S tate o f W ash in g to n th at it w o u ld b u ild th e
D ream lin er airp lan es in th is state.'"
T h e p rem ise u n d erly in g th at assertio n --th at B o ein g co m m itted to th e S tate o f
W ash in g to _ n _ to b u ild all o f th e C o m p alw 's 7 8 7 s in W ash in g to n is false. B o ein g d id
n o t co m m it to th e S tate o f W ash in g to n th at it w o u ld b u ild all o f its 7 8 7 s in th at state.
B o ein g h o n o red an d fu lly --all o f its co n tractu al co m m itm en ts to th e S tate o f
W ash in g to n lo n g b efo re th e d ecisio n to lo cate th e C o m p an y 's n ew p ro d u ctio n facility
in S o u th C aro lin a. T h e n o tio n th at B o ein g h ad so m eh o w co m m itted to W ash in g to n
S tate to b u ild all 7 8 7 s in th at state is n eith er m en tio n ed n o r ev en su g g ested eith er in
th e IA M 's ch arg e o r in y o u r recen tly Ii led co m p lain t, an d y o u n ev er asserted th at
B o ein g h ad m ad e su ch co n tractu al co m m itm en ts to th e S tate o f W ash in g to n in th e
sev eral d iscu ssio n s w e h av e h ad w ith y o u in th e m o n th s p reced in g y o u r tilin g O f th e
co m p lain t. H ad y o u d o n e so , w e w o u ld h av e ex p lain ed to y o u w h y su ch an
u n d erstan d in g w as p lain ly in co rrect. I call u p o n y o u to q u ick ly an d fu lly co rrect th e
reco rd o n th is p o in t. In ad d itio n to b ein g W h o lly u n in tb n n ed , it creates th e
im p ressio n th at y o u an d y o u r o ffice are n o w in search o f a th eo ry th at w ill su p p o rt a
p red eterm in ed o u tco m e, ev en a th eo ry th at h as n o th in g to d o w ith th e N atio n al L ab o r
R elatio n s A ct.
F o u r S ta te m e n t T h a t B o e in g S o u g h t T o "P u n ish " U n io n E m p lo ye e s
isch aractcrizin g w h at B o ein g d id . b y callin g it a "tran ster" o f w o rk , o r
su g g estin g th at B o ein g b ro k e co m m itm en ts to th e S tate o f W ash in g to n , is h ad
en o u g h . F ar in u re eg reg io u s, h o w ev er, arc th e statem en ts th at h av e b een m ad e
co n cern in g th e m o tiv es an d in ten t o f B o ein g 's lead ers sp eeitically , th at sen io r
B o ein g ex ecu tiv es so u g h t to "p u n ish " u n io n em p lo y ees an d to "th reaten " th em fo r
NLRB-FOIA-00009130
th eir p ast an d p o ssib le fu tu re strik es, th ro u g h th e (.!o m p an y 's statem en ts an d its
lo catio n o f th e seco n d fin al assem b ly lin e in S o u th C aro lin a..,
T h e N e w Y o rk D in e s q u o tes y o u as say in g th at B o ein g "h ad a consistent
m essage th at [th e C o m p an y an d its E x ecu tiv es] w ere d o in g th is to punish their
em p lo y ees fo r h av in g stru ck . an d h av in g th e p o w er to strik e in th e fu tu re." (S tev en
G reen h o u se. Labor B oard C ase A gainst B oeing P oints 10 F ights to C om e. N ew Y o rk
em p h asis ad d ed .) N eith er y o u r co m p lain t n o r th e p o st-h o c
T im es. A p ril 2 3 . 2 0 1 .0 .
statem en ts y o u an d o th er o fficials o f th e N L R B h av e m ad e sin ce th e tilin g o f th e
com plaint offers a single B oeing statem ent-....let alone a "consistent m essage"---.that
B o ein g acted to "p u n ish " its em p lo y ees, an d , n eed less to say , y o u o ffer n o ev id en ce
o f th is in y o u r n atio n al m ed ia in terv iew eith er.
T h e co m p lain t alleg es th at B o ein g C o m m ercial A irp lan es C E O Jim A lb au g h
slated th at B o ein g "d ecid ed to lo cate its 7 8 7 D ream lin er seco n d lin e in S o u th
C aro lin a b ecau se o f p ast U n it strik es, an d th reaten ed th e lo ss o f fu tu re U n it w o rk
o p p o rtu n ities b ecau se o f su ch strik es." (C o m p lain t 41i6 te).) T h e co m p lain t cites a
M arch 2 , 2 0 1 0 in terv iew o f M r. A lb au g h b y th e S eattle T im es, b u t d o es n o t p u rp o rt to
b e q u o tin g an y p articu lar statem en t. T h e N L IZ B 's w eb site, h o w ev er, o ffers a "fact
sh eet" th at q u o tes M r. A lb au g h as say in g : "T h e o v errid in g facto r [in tran sferrin g th e
lin e] w as n o t th e b u sin ess clim ate. A n d it w as n o t th e w ag es w e're p ay in g to d ay . It
w as th at kVe can n o t afib rd to h av e a w o rk sto p p ag e, y o u k n o w , ev ery th ree y ears."
L
ifb.e.o k:/iiode ;-14.4
hitni.,
It w o u ld , o f co u rse. h av e b een en tirely lp erm issib le u n d er ex istin g law k w M r.
A lb au g h to h av e m ad e a statem en t th at th e C o m p an y co n sid ered th e eco n o m ic co sts
o f fu tu re strik es in its b u sin ess d ecisio n to lo cate w o rk in S o u th C aro lin a--o r ev en
th at it w as th e so le reaso n tb r su ch d ecisio n . B u t M r. A lb au g h d id n o t ev en say eith er .
o f th ese th in g s. M r. A lb au g h 's fu ll statem en t w as as fo llo w s:
W ell I th in k y o u can p ro b ab ly say th at ab liiit all th e states in th e co u n try rig h t
n o w w ith th e eco n o m y b ein g w h at it is. R u t ag ain , th e o v errid in g facto r w as
n o t th e b u sin ess clim ate an d it % v as n o t th e w ag es w e're p ay in g p eo p le to d ay .
It w as th at w e can 't affo rd to h av e a w o rk sto p p ag e ev ery th ree y ears.

W e
ca n 't a /fin d to co n tin u e th e ra te o f e sca la tio n O f w a g e s a s w e h a ve in d w p a st.
Y o u kn o w . th o se a re th e o ve rrid in g jiw to rs. A n d m y b ia s w a s to sta y h e re b u t
w e could not get those tw o issues done de.S pile the best e ffo rts q f th e U n io n
and the best (W orts of the com pany.
T h e italicized sen ten ces--w h ich w ere d elib erately o m itted fro m y o u r o ffice's
p resen tatio n o f th is q u o tatio n o n its w eb site m ak e clear th at M r. A lb au g h w as
referen cin g tw o , rath er th an o n e, "o v errid in g factors," only one of w h ich is th e risk o f'
a fu tu re strik e. T h ese are critical o m issio n s th at d irectly co n trad ict y o u r ap p aren t
th eo ry o f th is case.
NLRB-FOIA-00009131
M oreover;no reasonable reader of M r. A lbaugh's interview w ould depict it as
part of a "consistent m essage" that B oeing sought to "punish'.its union em ployees.
M r. A lbaugh expresses his "bias" in favor of P uget S ound and lauds the good-faith
efforts of both sides. H e explains that the com pany's prelbrence w as to locate the
new production line in P uget S ound and that both the. com pany and the union m ade
good-faith eltbrts to accom plish that shared objective. T hus,w hen not m isquoted,it
is not even arguable that M r. A lbaugh's statem ent constitutes a "m essage" of
"punishm ent" to the union tbr its past or future strike capability.
T he com plaint's attem pt to depict a statem ent by Jim M cN erney. B oeing's
C hairm an and C hief E xecutive O fficer. as a threat to punish union em ployees is but
another exam ple of m ischaracterization. T he com plaint alleges that M r. M cN erney
"m ade an extended statem ent regarding .d ive rsifyin g [B o e in g 's .]labor pooland labor
relationship,and m oving the 787 D ream liner w ork to S outh C arolina d u e w 'strikes
happening every three to four years in P uget S ound.'" (C om plaint ',M O (em phasis
added).)
H e did not say that at all. T he allegation is a sleight-of-hand in tw o obvious
respects,accom plished by the selective m isquotation of M r. M cN erney's actual
statem ents. F irst,M r. M cN erney w as not m aking an "extended statem ent" about A tth .ti
B oeing selected C harleston. H e w as responding to a reporter's question about the
cost of potentially locating a new assem bly line in C harleston. A nd in fact,the
decision to locale the new finalassem bly line in S outh C arolina had not even been
m ade at the tim e M r. M cN erney's statem ents w ere m ade. S econd,M r. M cN erney
answ ered only the question as to com parative costs that w as asked. T hus,in the
passages you m isquote and m ischaracterize,he,diseussed the relative costs of a new
facility in a location other than P uget S ound. versus the potentialc.osts associated
w ith "strikes happening every three to tO ur years in P uget S ound." H e did not say,as
"due to" strikes.
A nd M r. M cN erney did not even rem otely suggest that w hat w ould later turn
O ut to be the decision to open a new line in C harleston w as in re ta lia tio n P r such
com plaint. H e did not say,he did not suggest,and he did not im ply in any respect
facility other than in P uget S ound w ould or m ight be m ade to punish the union for
past strikes or because of their pow er to strike in the future. N either did he say,
suggest;or im ply that any existing union w ork w as being transferred to C harleston.
H is answ er cannot be cited in support of the legaltheories in the com plaint. m uch less
the sw eeping statem ent you m ade to the N ew Y or4 T im es about B oeing's "consistent
em ployees.
F in a lly. M r. M cN e rn e y 's answ er to a reporter's question v i:U S ito l "posted on
B oeing's intranet w ebsitc for allem plo .eS ,.. m uch less posted for the purpose of
NLRB-FOIA-00009132
sen d in g an illeg al m essag e u n d er th e N L R A , as th e co m p lain t in co rrectly an d
m islead in g ly su g g ests.
N o r d o an y o f th e o th er few statem en ts y o u referen ce in y o u r co m p lain t
w h ich I attach to th is letter rem o tely su g g est an in ten t to "p u n ish " th e C o m p an y 's
u n io n ized em p lo y ees: -Q u ite th e co n trary : th ese statem en ts sh o w , at m o st, th at th e
C o m p an y co n sid ered (am o n g m u ltip le o th er facto rs) th e risk an d p o ten tial co sts o f
fu tu re strik es in d ecid in g w h ere to lo cate its n ew fin al assem b ly facility . T h o se h av e
b een d eem ed p erm issib le co n sid eratio n s b y an u n b ro k en lin e o f S u p rem e C o u rt an d
N L .R .B precedent lb! .4 5 y ears. N o t o n ly th at, b u t, as y o u k n o w , B o ein g reach ed O u t to
th e IA M in an efib rt to secu re a lo n g -term ag reem en t th at w o u ld h av e resu lted in
p lacin g th e seco n d lin e in P u g et S o u n d . A lth o u g h th o se n eg o tiatio n s w ere n o t
su ccessfu l, th at effo rt alo n e d efeats y o u r w h o lly u n su p p o rted claim th at B o ein g
ex ecu tiv es sen t a "co n sisten t m essag e" th at B o ein g 's d ecisio n w as in ten d ed to
"p u n ish " th e u n io n fo r p ast strik es.
V h at y o u said to a n atio n al n ew sp ap er, th at B o ein g m ad e a b illio n -d o llar
d ecisio n to "p u n ish " its em p lo y ees, is a v ery serio u s--in d eed , in ten tio n ally
.
p ro v o cativ e alleg atio n ag ain ,st B o ein g 's lead ers. T h o se lead ers are d eep ly
co m m itted to all o f th e m en an d w o m en w h o w o rk fo r th e C o m p an y , th o se
rep resen ted b y u n io n s an d th o se w h o are n o t. Y o u r statem en t im p lies th at B o ein g 's
m o st sen io r ex ecu tiv es acted o u t o f p erso n al sp ite an d retrib u tio n to w ard its lab o r
u n io n , as o p p o sed to actin g in th e in terests o f th e C o m p an y , th e C o m p an y 's
em p lo y ees, an d th e C o m p an y 's sh areh o ld ers. Y o u h av e n o su p p o rt fo r th at statem en t
w h atso ev er.
Y our Statem entT hatB oeing's Statem ents And Actions U

.ere So D em onstrably
U nlanintT hatY ou W ere C om pelled T o F ile T he C om plaint
. Y o u also to ld th e N ew Y ork T im es th at, g iv en th e C o m p an y 's so -called
"co n sisten t m essag e" th at th e C o m p an y in ten d ed to "p u n ish " th e u n io n Ib r its p rio r
strik es an d its p o w er to strik e in th e fu tu re, y o u h ad n o ch o ice b u t to issu e a
co m p lain t. (S p ecifically . y o u said : "I can 't n o t issu e a co m p lain t in th e face o f su ch
ev id en ce.") A m o n g o th er reaso n s, th at statem en t is p u zzlin g , to say th e least, in lig h t
o f th e co
,'s d iscu ssio n s w ith y o u an d y o u r o ffice co n cern in g th is m atter
'n p articu lar, it is h ard to reco n cile w ith w h at h as b een y o u r
o v er le p ast six m o n tl
rep ea L s a em en t th at y o u d id n o t b eliev e th is w as a m atter in w h ich th e N L R B
sh o u ld b e in v o lv ed an d th at y o u w o u ld tak e n o a d tib iib n th e M atter if B o ein g ag reed
th at it w o u ld n o t lay o ff an y 7 8 7 em p lo y ees in P u g et S o u n d d u rin g th e d u ratio n o f its
co llectiv e barg aining agreem ent w ith th e L A M .
W e o f co u rse u n d erstan d th at y o u rev ersed y o u r p o sitio n an d ab an d o n ed th e
ag reem en t th at y o u y o u rself so u g h t fro m B o ein g after y o u r fu rth er d iscu ssio n s w ith
th e co m p lain an t. B u t th e p o in t is th is: It is ex ceed in g ly d ifficu lt to u n d erstan d h o w
y o u co u ld h av e p ro p o sed an d th en ag reed to su ch a reso lu tio n if, as y o u n o w say , y o u
b eliev ed th at th e statem en ts an d actio n s b y B o ein g an d its ex ecu tiv es w ere so
NLRB-FOIA-00009133
egregious that the law literally com pelled a com plaint by the N L R B .01course,the
law com pelled no such thine.
Your Statem entThatH u ,C om plaintD oes .V otSeek To C lose C harkston
Finally.there is the issue of your articulation of the rem edy sought in this
com plaint.T he com plaint seeks an order directing B oeing to -have the [IA M
State of W ashington.''N otw ithstanding that you are seeking this rem edy,your office
has been at pains since M ine the com plaint to state publicly that this is not equivalent
to an order that B oeing "close its operations in South carolina. - F act C heck,
available atw w .oirb.o(iv (post of A pril 26,201 I .W e and the public w ould be
interested to hear your explanation as to w hy you believe thatto be the ease.
B oeing's current plan is to produce a m axim um often 787s per m onth: seven in
Puget Sound.and three on the second line in C harleston.lithe N L R B w ere to order
assem bled in C harleston.that w ould of course require the production of all of the
explained repeatedly to you and your staff in our extended discussions belbre you -
* * * * *
B oeing intends to put this pattern of m isquotations and m ischaracterizations
before the A dm inistrative L aw Judge,and ultim ately,before the N ational L abor
w ithdraw alof this com plaint.
Sincerely yours.
:.P1444
J.M ichaelLuttie,
G enera! C ounsel
A ttachm ent
NLRB-FOIA-00009134
S tatem ents R eferenced in the N LR B C om plaint.
6(a) - Jam es M cN ern ey , 2 0 0 9 3 rd Q u arter E arn in g s C all, O cto b er 2 8 . 2 0 0 9
l'h ere w o u ld b e ex ecu tio n ch allem zes asso ciated w ith th at ch o ice [o f C h arlesto n ].
B u t k eep in m in d th at w e'v e g o t a p retty g o o d -sized o p eratio n d o w n in C h arlesto n to d ay .
T h e -- th ere w o u ld b e so m e d u p licatio n . W e w o u ld o b v io u sly w o rk to m in im ize th at.
'B u t I th in k h av in g said all o f th at, d iv ersify in g o u r lab o r p o o l an d lab o r relatio n sh ip , h as
so m e b en efits. I th in k th e u n io n IA M . an d th e C o m p an y h av e h ad tro u b le fig u rin g it o u t
b etw een th em selv es o v er th e last few co n tract d iscu ssio n s.
A n d I'v e g o t to fig u re o u t a w ay to reduce that risk to the C om pany. A nd so som e of the
m o d est in efficien cies, fir ex am p le, asso ciated w ith a m o v e to C h arlesto n , are certain ly
m o re th an o v erco m e b y strik es h ap p en in g ev ery -- ev ery th ree o r fo u r y ears in P u g et
S o u n d an d th e v ery n eg ativ e fin an cial im p act o f th e C o m p an y , o u r b alan ce sh eet w o u ld
b e a lo t stro n g er to d ay h ad w e n o t h ad a strik e last y ear. O u r cu sto m ers w o u ld b e a lo t
h ap p ier to d ay , h ad w e n o t h ad a strik e last y ear. A n d th e 7 8 7 p ro g ram w o u ld b e in b etter
sh ap e h ad w e not
A n d so I d o n 't b lam e -, I d o n 't b lam e th is to tally o n th e u n io n . W e
ju st h av en 't fig u red o u t a w ay , th e m ix d o esn 't -- isn 't w o rk in g w ell, y et. S o w e'v e eith er
g o t to satisfacto ry satisfy o u rselv es th e m ix isn 't d ifferen t o r w e h av e to d iv ersify o u r
labor base.
6(b)
- "7 8 7 S eco n d L in e Q u estio n s an d A n sw ers," 1 0 /2 8 /0 9
Q 3 : W as o n e site a h ig h er co st th an th e o th er?
A:
A ll th in g s tak en in to acco u n t, th is d ecisio n w ill p ro v id e eco n o m ic ad v an tag es b y
im p ro v in g o u r co m p etitiv en ess an d reducing vulnerability to delivery disruptions due to a
host of'factors,from naturaldisasters to hom eland security issues and w ork stoppages.
W e're electing not to get into how individualsites hared in specific areas o f th e
evaluati(m i.
* * * * * * * *
Q 8 : W e .u n d erstan d y o u w ere p u sh in g th e u n io n fo r a n o -strik e ag reem en t an d cam e
clo se to g ettin g a 1 0 -y ear d eal. O b v io u sly y o u d id n 't reach an ag reem en t. W as th at th e
faeto r th at tip p ed th e d ecisio n ?
A :
It w as an im p o rtan t p art o f o u r d iscu ssio n w ith th e u n io n , b u t it w asn 't th e o n ly
facto r in o u r d ecisio n . In the fin al an aly sis, th is cam e d o w n to en su rin g o u r lo n g -term
global com petitiveness and diversifying th e co m p an y to p ro tect ag ain st th e risk o f'
p ro d u ctio n d isru p tio n s th at can occur ibr a variety of reasons, from natural disasters, to
hom eland security threats, to w ork stoppages. W hile w e didn't reach a long-term
agreem ent, w e felt our discussions w ith the IA M w ere productive and fficused on the
NLRB-FOIA-00009135
right things -- global com petitiveness (including em erging com petitors),and w ays to
sustain a reliable,on-tim e flow ofdeliveries to our custom ers.W e look forw ard to
m oving tbrw ard w ith the 1A M in a positive w ay to grow our business in an increasingly
* * * * *
Q 26: Y ou say that havint a second line in C harleston reduces risk,but if the lA N T W es
on strike in the Puget Sound again they w ill halt your production lines.W hat does a
A :
G eographically diversifying final assem bly on the 787 w ill protect a portion of
deliveries against disruption.from both natural and m an-m ade events,including w ork
stoppages due to labor disputes.H aving the second line w ill also give us assurance and
B oeing spokesm an Jim Proulx cited strikes in the Puget Sound region as a m ajor factor in
the decision.W ith a second supplier tbr every part,B oeing potentially could continue
producing D ream liners in South C arolina even if the M achinists w ent on strike here.
"R epeated labor disruptions have affected our perform ance in our custom ers eyes,"
here," he added.
* * * * * * *
R ay C onner,vice president and general m anager of supply-chain m anagem ent and
operations,sent a m essage M onday intbnning all B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes
"W e w ill im m ediately begin identifying,selecting and contracting w ith suppliers to stand
H ouk said B oeing has not determ ined how m uch w ork w ill be replicated w ithin the
disclosed extensive plans for other buildings at the facility.A m ong these is a "fin and
rudder shop," w hich suggests the tail tin m ay he built at B oeing C harleston.
B ut Proulx said."It's too soon to say w hat w ill go w here."
NLRB-FOIA-00009136
H e said th e rep licatio n o f p arts so u rcin g also w o u ld "acco m m o d ate th e ram p -u p " req u ired
to sh ift to a p lan n ed ro llo u t o f 1 0 p lan es a m o n th b y th e en d o f 2 0 1 3 .
* * * * * * * *
C o n n er's m essag e said th e u n io n k n ew th is w as co m in g .
"W e in fo rm ed th e (IA M ) o f o u r p lan s to b eg in d u al so u rcin g d u rin g th e co m p an y /u n io n
d iscu ssio n s p reced in g o u r d ecisio n to p lace th e seco n d 7 8 7 lin e in S o u th C aro lin a,"
C o n n er's m essag e to m an ag ers stated .

- W e rem ain co m m itted to stren g th en in g o u r
w o rk in g relatio n sh ip w ith th e u n io n ."
* * * * * * * *
B o ein g 's P ro u lx said p o ten tial ex tern al su p p liers are b ein g assessed "b ased o n
cap ab ilities, b ased o n th eir ab ility to p ro d u ce h ig h -q u ality co m p o n en ts an d at th e b est
v alu e."
"W e'll rev iew su p p lier ex p ertise, an d w e'll en su re th at th e rig h t lev el o f train in g an d
o v ersig h t is in p lace to m ak e su re th e p erfo rm an ce stan d ard s are m et," h e said . .
C o n n er's m essag e to m an ag ers em p h asized th e d ecisio n m ean s d u p licatio n , n o t
rep lacem en t, o f w o rk d o n e in th is reg io n .
"W e are n o t m o v in g an y w o rk th at B o ein g em p lo y ees are cu rren tly p erfo rm in g w e are
ju st ad d in g ad d itio n al so u rces," C o n n er said .
6 (d )-
P ugel S ound
B usiness JournalA rticle, D ecem b er 8 , 2 0 0 9
"D u al-so u rcin g an d co -p ro d u ctio n w ill allo w u s to m ain tain p ro d u ctio n stab ility an d b e a
reliab le su p p lier to o u r cu sto m ers," h e said in th e m em o .
* * * * * * *
B o ein g sp o k esm an Jim P ro u lx said it w as "to o early " to tell if th e n ew p ro d u ctio n w ill b e
co n tracted o u t o r d o n e b y B o ein g itself at th e n ew S o u th C aro lin a site, o r elsew h ere in th e
country.
H e said th is is n o t in d icativ e o f a w h o lesale m o v em en t

th is reg io n .
orex istin g p ro d u ctio n aw ay fro m
"T h ere w ill b e n o jo b s lo st as p art o f th is m o v e. T h ere are n o p lan s to tak e th is w o rk
aw ay ," h e said .
NLRB-FOIA-00009137
W ell I think you can probably say thataboutall the states in the country right now w ith
the econom y being w hat it is.B ut again,the overriding factor w as not the business
clim ate zm d itw as notthe w ages w e're paying people today.

It w as that w e can't afford
to have a w ork stoppage every three years.W e can't alford to continue the rate of
.escalation of w ages as w e have in the past.Y ou know ,those are the overriding factors.
. A nd m y bias w as to stay here but w e could not get those tw o issues done despite the best
efforts ofthe U nion and the best eflbrts of the com pany.
NLRB-FOIA-00009138
A L A N W IL SO N
G ENERAL
ATTO R N EY
A pril28,2011
1099 14
th Street,N W ,Suite 8600
D ear M r.Solom on:
A s A ttorneys G eneral of our respective states,w e call upon you,as A cting G eneral
C ounsel of the N ational L abor R elations B oard ("N L R B "),to w ithdraw im m ediately the
com plaint num bered 19-C A -32431 against B oeing.T his com plaint represents an assault upon the
constitutional right of free speech,and the ability of our states to create jobs and recruit industry.
Y our ill-conceived retaliatory action seeks to destroy our citizens'right to w ork.It is South
C arolina and B oeing today,but w ill be any of our states,w ith our right to w ork guarantees,
tom orrow .
T he right to w ork,uninhibited by com pulsory unionism ,is a precious right and is
constitutionally enforceable through our states'right to w ork law s.$ee R etail C lerks Intl v.
Scherm erhorn,375 U .S.96 (1963).Such law s are designed to elim inate union affiliation as a
criterion for em ploym ent.H ow ever,the N L R B ,through this single proceeding,attem pts to
sound the death knell of the right to w ork.A dditionally,this tenuous com plaint w ill reverberate
throughout union and non-union states alike,as international com panies w ill question the
cause or justification.
Furtherm ore,this com plaint disrupts,and m ay w ell elim inate,the production of B oeing
787 D ream liners in South C arolina.In fact,B oeing has expanded its operations to m eet product
dem and in South C arolina,w hile adding new jobs in W ashington State.T he com plaint charges
B oeing w ith the com m ission of an unfair labor practice,but appears to do so w ithout legal and
factual foundation.T his unparalleled and overreaching action seeks to drive a stake through the
heart of the free enterprise system .T he statem ents of B oeing officials cited in your com plaint are
the innocent exercise of the com pany's right of free speech.T he Suprem e C ourt long ago m ade
it clear that the N L R A does not lim it,and the First A m endm ent protects,the em ployer's right to
express view s on labor policies or problem s. N .L .R .B .v.V a.E lectric and Pow er, 314 U S 469,
NLRB-FOIA-00009139
April27,2011
Page 2
477 (1941).A s the C ourtrecently reiterated in C itizens U nited v.FE C , 130 S.C t.876,899-90
(2010),a corporation is nota second class citizen in term s of FirstA m endm entprotection.
O ur states are struggling to em erge from one of the w orsteconom ic collapses since the
D epression.Y our com plaintfurther im pairs an econom ic recovery.Intrusion by the federal
bureaucracy on behalf of unions w illnotcreate a single new job or putone unem ployed person
back to w ork.
The only justification for the N LR B 's unprecedented retaliatory action is to aid union
survival.Y our action seriously underm ines our citizens'rightto w ork as w ellas their ability to
com pete globally.Therefore,as A ttorneys G eneral,w e w illprotectour citizens from union
bullying and federalcoercion.W e thus callupon you to cease this attack on our rightto w ork,
our states'econom ies,and our jobs.
W e look forw ard to your im m ediate response.
Sincerely,
Q U AD
Alan W ilson
Attorney G eneral
C c:R espective C ongressionalD elegations
NLRB-FOIA-00009140
April27,2011
Page 3
K en C uccinelli
Attorney G eneral
C om m onw ealth of V irginia
Jon C .B runing
Attorney G eneral
State of N ebraska
Sam uelS.O lens
Attorney G eneral
State of G eorgia
O ilv 4 11
Pam B ondi
Attorney G eneral
State of Florida
E.ScottPruitt
Attorney G eneral
State of O klahom a
Tom H orne
Attorney G eneral
State of Arizona
G reg A bbott
A ttorney G eneral
State of Texas
LU364e
Luther Strange
A ttorney G eneral
State of A labam a
NLRB-FOIA-00009141
Lim ited S tates G o vern m en t
N atio n al Lab o r R elatio n s B o ard
gtFIC E O F T H E G E N E R A L C O U N SE L
A .IvA dvice M em orandum
FORDISTRIBUTION-
DATE
April 11, 2011
TO:
Region 19
FIUM
Division of Advice
SU B JEC T:
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
524-5060
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
Unit's strike history, even though no unit employees have yet
NLRB-FOIA-00009142
Case 19-CA-32431
FA C T S
and" Wichita, Kansas.
carry out decisions in (a) through (d.) above, to enter
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00009143
Case 19-CA-32431
manufacture of the wings. Boeing repeatedly has had to.
T h e 2 0 0 8 S t r i k e a n d I t s Af t e r m a t h
McNerney sent a long e-mail to Boeing employees about the
going back to 1995, he wrote, "we believe this track

record of
NLRB-FOIA-00009144
Case 19-CA-32431
- 4
job security by buying our airplanes."
conference in Everett. In a S e a ttle T im e s

article, he was
The strike lasted 57 days and ended on November '1, 2008,
when the parties signed the current contraCt. During the
that Bo e ing needed to establish a second 787 assembly line.
On February 9, the S e a ttle T im e s reported that Washington
M a n a g e m e n t & O p e r a t i o n s R a y C o n n e r . I A M representatives
included International President TomBuffenbarger, General
Vice President Rich Michalski, and the Directing Business .
1 In his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
NLRB-FOIA-00009145
Case 19-CA-32431
In early July, Boeing annouriced its intent to purchase
NLRB-FOIA-00009146
Case 19-CA-32431
assembly line. For example,

T h e P o st a n d th e C o u rie r reported
advantage in the 787 chase[.]"

An article in the C h a rle sto n
B u sin e ss J o u rn a l asserted that Charleston might be a better
meeting, the parties agreed' to schedule negotiations for a
decision about where to locate the second .line. On September
(later quoted in a September 29 article in the S e a ttle T im e s).
NLRB-FOIA-00009147
Case 19-CA-32431
do.
As a.follow-up to the parties' August 27 meeting in
resolve economic issues for the long term rather than throu'jh
terms of wages, Boeing wanted tb reduce general wage increases
NLRB-FOIA-00009148
Case 19-CA-32431
Carolina.
the Board meeting on October 26. By the end'of the parties'
decision to establish an assembly operation for any.next
generation product. Boeing asserts that this "rough.draft"
get back to him.
With respect to locating 'the second line in South Carolina,
NLRB-FOIA-00009149
Case 19-CA-32431
couple of weeks."
Two days later, TAM General Vice President Michalski
not respond. On October 24, Michalski called Senior Vice r
session, approved $170 million in taxpayer-backed, bonds for
NLRB-FOIA-00009150
Case 19-CA-32431
- o
thost of factors, from natural disasters to homeland security
contract separate suppliers for the South Carolina'assembly
Journal on December 8 discussed this announcement. The
The Puget So u n d Business Journal quoted Conner as follows:
customers."
NLRB-FOIA-00009151
Case 19-CA-32431
11
Integrated Defense Systems CEO to replace Carson.)_ The
The issue last fall was really .about, you know, how
we could ensure production stability and'how we
getting away from the frequent strikes that we were .
Charleston.
protracted labor stoppage that we had ... the fall of '
2008, I mean that cost the Company billions of dollars.

4
NLRB-FOIA-00009152
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -
At one point, Albaugh summed up the basis,of Boeing's
[t]he overriding factor was not the business climate..
because of Union strikes, stating, "Mein do work here if we
-schedule. Approximately 2,900 Puget Sound unit employees
approximately 60%. .Boeing asserts that the South Carolina
AC T I O N
employees, on its intranet site, in the media, and in. talks
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00009153
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
bodies - even as it continued the motions of' negotiating with
credibly blame the 787 production delays on employees! 2008
problems.
and a violation of Section 8(a)(3). based upon.Boeings
establish a dual-sourcing supply program in order toretaliate
activity.
We would also argue, in the alternative, that
Section 8(a)(1) and (3) Violations, the Region should seek: a
NLRB-FOIA-00009154
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -
threats of reprisals violative of Section 8(a)(1). 5 Th e C o u r t
beyond his control[.]" 5 On the other hand, "'threats of
activity. 12
5 See NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969).
6 Ibid.
8 See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
9 See id. at 520.
18 See id. at 520-21.
11 See id. at 521.
12 See id. at 522.
r-
NLRB-FOIA-00009155
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15
date. "13

14 Th u s , t e l l i n g
employer unlawfully threatened ta jput its plan to build a new
of intraunion unrest and labor disputes.

18
unlawful threats. 17 Rather, an employer's predictions of
13
See id. at 522, fn. 6.
mem. 50 F.3d 1037 (11 t1 Cir. 1995); General Electric Co., 321
1997).
Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB 835, 851 (1999),-enfd. in pertinent
part 233 F.3d 831 (4 t11

Cir. 2000) (threat to close the plant if
investment in the plant or its closuxe).
unionized).
18
Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00009156
Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -
contingency plans in the event of a strike.

19 An employer may
also reference the possibility that unionization, including
to predicting "unavoidable consequences." 20
recounted by ,political figures within newspaper articles are
.Sound." 22 His comments were indistinguishable from the
-comments regarding a "two-source supplier strategy" found
. South Carolina in order to reduce vulnerability to delivery
disruptions caused by, among other things ., strikes. The
19 See id. 339 NLRB at 1137.
20
E. g., Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc., 342 NLRB
consequences").
22 These same comments were quoted in the Seattle Times.
23 See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00009157
- Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -

24

and
strikes. 25
work opportuhities in retaliation for such protected
activity. 26
bring those , jobs to their communities.
II. The Employer Violated Section 8(a)(3)
Sound employees with consequent adverse effects .. Instead of
The Region should insure that this message was communicated
to employees.
24
25 The authors of these articles will need to testify. If
that Boeing was.looking to insure "production continuity"
NLRB-FOIA-00009158
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -
desirable 787 jobs'. There are likely to be transfers to
implemented.
not necessary to establish a Section 8(a)(3) violation. 27 I n
found a Section 8(a)(3) violation based upon the employer's .
its/nonunion plant. The Board noted that "diversion .of the
new work from Standish" and therefore-violated Section 8(a)(3)
28 Ibid.
30 S e e i d . a t 3 1 9 .
NLRB-FOIA-00009159
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
.Associated Constructors, 325 NLRB 998, 998-1000 (1998), enfd.
32
Capehorn Industry, 336 NLRB .364, 365 (2001).-.
See id. at 365-67 (employer violated Section 8(a)(3) by
33
1322, 1374 (1996) (employer violated Section 8(a) (3) by
NLRB-FOIA-00009160
Case 19-CA-32431
20 -
erection of "a dam at the sciurce of supply of potential,
activity. "36
strike. 38 Specifically, the Court found that the use of a
employees who were likely to honor -a union picket line in the
36
37
380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38
See id. at 283-85.
39
See id. at 284.
40 See ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00009161
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
'substantial." 42
legitimate business decision.. In addition, Commercial
Airplanes CEO Albaugh condeded .that going to South Carolina,
.strike disruptions is belied by Boeing's rejection of the
striking.
We also c o n c l u d e t h a t B o e i n g ' z c o n d u c t w a s " i n h e r e n t l y
41 See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5 th Cir.
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
42 See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc.,

388 U.S. 26; 33
43 See
NLRB-FOIA-00009162
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent. ,44 I n
International Paper Co., the Board set forth
asserted business justification against the

invasion of
employee rights. 47
Paper.
First, the harm to employees' Section 7 rights was
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
(4th Cir. 2000).
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
45
46
NLRB-FOIA-00009163
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -
acompanied by official comments on the intranet and in the
their jobs to nonunionized workers -. Others may be encouraged
The Board recently held in Arc Bridges, Inc.

that an

48
decided to locate the.second line in South Carolina because
South Carolina employees did not. Accordingly,.Boeing's
Section 8(a)(3).
III. T h e U n i o n W a i v e d i t s R i g h t t o B a r g a i n
good faith over its.decision as to where to locate the second
48 S e e
id., slip op. at 3.
NLRB-FOIA-00009164
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
bargain, applying Provena. 50 .
A. M a n d a t o r y S u b j e c t o f B a r g a i n i n g
Workers Local 150-A v. NLRB, 1 F.3d 24'(D.C. Cir. 1993).
52 Ibid.
employees").
NLRB-FOIA-00009165
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
jobs. 57
therefore poses a detriment to unit employees. 58 Th e w o r k
that will-be performed in South Carolina is identical to that
could not have offered sufficient concessions. to change its.
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
58 See 321 NLRB at 617.
NLRB-FOIA-00009166
Case 19-CA-32431
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009. Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
- 26 -
B. Waiver of the Right to Bargain
term of a collective-bargaining agreement.

60 The Board will
unilaterally take the action in question.

61 I n i n t e r p r e t i n g
decision that the employer has implemented unilaterally. 63
independent contractors to perfOrm any of the Employer's
operations or phases thereof (subcontracting)[. ]64

Th i s
60
61
See id. at 812, fn. 19.
"specifically, precisely, and plainly" granted the employer .
63
64
See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00009167
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
contract."
is unlawfully ,motivated. But there is no authority for the
8(a)(3) violation."
65 Id. at 1260.
66 Id. at 1262.
67 See Allison Corp., 330 NLRB at 1365.
68 See Reno Hilton, 326 NLRB 1421, 1430 (1998), enfd. 196 F.3d
NLRB-FOIA-00009168
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -
notice and review provisions in Article 21,7 did not apply
traditional Section 8(a)(5) bargaining obligations. 70 A b s e n t
IV. T h e Ap p r o p r i a t e R e m e d y
First, with .respect to the Section 8(a)(1) violations,
December, even though no unit work would be relocated before
70

71
NLRB-FOIA-00009169
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
Finally, to remedy the Section 8(a) (3) violation, the
problems .with suppliers and FAA certification. Thus, the
Logistics & Operations, 340 NLRB 255; 258 (2003), affd. 400
the Act").
73 Three Sisters Sportswear Co., 312 NLRB .853, 853 (1993),
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00009170
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.
ROFs - 9

74
NLRB-FOIA-00009171
L (A ) (162-"U
N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd
oll'FIC E O F T H E G E N E R A L C O U N SE L
S .A .N dvice M em orandum
FORBISTRIBUTifiN-
D A T E :
A p r il 1 1 , 2 0 1 1
TO :
Region 19
FR O M :
Division of Advice
SU BJEC T:
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
524-5060
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
second assembly line at a nonunion facility because of the .
NLRB-FOIA-00009172
Case 19-CA-32431
F A C T S
Company facility .
to- another - a a p a h 9 . facility rio-t covered by
prevent production schedule -slippage[ -.-]-' S e c t i o n - 2177------ -
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00009173
Case 19-CA-32431
-3
suppliers in the southeast U.S. and abroad. FOr example,
problems with suppliers and -software issues.
its growing order backlog: At about the same time, Boeing
Company officials noted the need for a second assembly _line ._
- but- did-not- di-scuss - the matt -er- furtffer- -
On September 6, 2008, the.employees struck in support of
M c N e r n e y-sent- a- Long - e -mail---to- Boekng- employees -TabOdt

-th& - - - - -
sustain and grow Boeing jobs[.J" McNerney went on to state,
is a big deal(.]" He also tied labor disputes to problems
offers and go on strike'four of the last five negotiations
NLRB-FOIA-00009174
%.
Case 19-CA-32431
conference in Everett. In a Seattle Times article, he was
Nor -E hwest; Kiga then said that they would "hate to lose a -
- looking - to- put- the- second- 78-7- line -

ewhel-.6. ----
On April 16, Boeing and IAN officials held their annual
Management-&-Operations - Ray- Conner

-- IAM- representatives - - - - -
opportunity for the parties to meet Since the strike had
1 In his e-mail, CEO McNerney exaggerated the number of times
that the Union had struck. In actuality, prior strikes
occurred, in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
1'989 (48 days), 1995 (69 days), and 2005 (28 days).
NLRB-FOIA-00009175
Case 19-CA-32431
a way to stophavihg labor disputes. The general theme was
On July 8, the Seattle Times reported that Boeing's CEO'
July, on July 7 and July 23.

At each of these meetings,
schedule and had approximately 850.787 planes on back order as
that it had purchased Vought's plant, a South Carolina .
Boeing denied the Union access to the employees .in the North
NLRB-FOIA-00009176
Case 19-CA-32431
that South Carolina's "low unionization rate Th viewed as an
Business Journal asserted that Charleston might be abetter
workers with a history of "walk(ing] off the job."
Boeing suggested a series- of three-year agreements with an
for some- sort -of - neutrality agreement. At the end -

of the
long-term agreement. -
Jo urnal- characterized - th-i-s- vote- as- " t t - wild- card"- Th- Bbeing'- -
2, Might presented an hour-long video on Boeing's website
studied, no decision has -been made. But truthfully, it
charge following the election.,
NLRB-FOIA-00009177
Case 19-CA-32431
do.
---
deliveries to customers. The Union responded that in exchange_
for giving -up -the -right - t0 grrik-67- the 15ar-tiie .

th would need to
_wanted,---and-
f f e f f : - -
NLRB-FOIA-00009178
Case 19-CA-32431
if the parties' relationship were to improve, the Union did.
Carolina.
the Board of Directors . meeting as a deadline for resolving the
the Board meeting on October 26. By the end'of the parties'
- towards-the - end- of- the -contract, annbarinbr'easeg -in pension
work; location of the second line in the' Puget Sound area; and
x,,month- advance -notice -and- good- faith- bargaining -ov -el- ahy -
requesting further information. Kight responded that -he would
get back to him.
NLRB-FOIA-00009179
Case 19-CA-32431
work to minimize that.. But I think having said all of
couple of weeks."
neutrality were unacceptable to-Boeing. Michalski explained
not respond- On-October-24-,.Michalsk-i-called-Senior-Vice- ---
Meanwhile, the_governmental_bodies-in-South Carolina were.
good-faith intention to reach a 'long-term agreement that would
NLRB-FOIA-00009180
Case 19-CA-32431
10
- ---final -analysis-,--this-came-down-to-ensuring-our-lon-g-reltC-----
_ .
contract_separate-
- --
line.
As a result, employees in the Puget Sound and Portland
customers."
NLRB-FOIA-00009181
Case 19-CA-32431
- 11
s econd 787 line in Charleston. In explaining Boeing's
h istory. For example, he stated:
could ensure that we werecompetitive over the long
with the union. And unfortunately -, we just didn't
Charleston.
When_asked.whether _going to Charleston,_in light of the
certainly is the right one f o r u s t o m a k e . 4.
that the 2008 strike reduced its 'earnings by $1.8 million, far
NLRB-FOIA-00009182
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -
because of Union strikes, stating, "Mein do work here if we
Of them are working on "out-of-sequence" assembly work, away
ACTION
This-case- involves-Boeingf-s,transfer_of.
From the time of the Union's strike in the fall-of 2008,
intranet Site, in the media, and in talks
___emplayeeson
denied the Union access to employees at .the facility. It also
the second line hinged on their vote in'a decertification
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00009183
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
problems.
- running,-with- the-space, the- necessar_y_equipme.nt,__and_ a_ _
and a_violation_pf.Section. 8 .(a)(3)._baseq_upon Boeing's
6 5 -
decision to place the second line in South Carolina a n d--
NLRB-FOIA-00009184
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14
threats of. reprisals violative of Section 8(a)(1).

5 T h e C o u r t
beyond his control[.]" 8 On the other hand, "'threats of
volition'" violate Section 8(a)(1)."
In General Electric'Company, the Board applied the Gissel
established its nonunion plant so that customers could get.the
status, was the reason it had experienced a rise in
- employer might want-to insure itself-agadnst production--
activity. 12
See NLRB v. Gissel -Packing CO., 395---U-.S: 575,- 618 - 1-19-69)---:
Ibid.
7 Id. at 619 (citation omitted):
8 See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
9 See id. at 520.
10 See id. at 520-21.
11 See id. at 521.
12 See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00009185
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
of the possibility of a strike at some speculative future .
date." 13
because of the exercise of Section 7 rights. 14 T h u s , t e l l i n g
of intraunion unrest and labor disputes.

18
loss of oustomers due to unionization or strike disruptions
unlawful threats. 17 Rather, an employer's predictions of
13 See id. at 522, fn. 6.
mem. 50 F.3d 1037 .(11'h Cir. 1995); General Electric Co., 321
1997).
Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB 835, 851 ( 19.99 ), enfd, in pertinent_
'part -233 F.3d 831 (4 th Cir. 2000) (threat to close the plant if
unionized).
18 Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00009186
Case 1.9-CA-32431
- 16 -
contingency plans in the event of a strike. 19 An employer may
to predicting "unavoidable consequences." 20
Boeing officials violated Section 8(a)(1) .. Some statements
admissionAan exception to the hearsay rule), if the reporter
Sound." 22 His comments were indistinguishable from the
. . .
NLRB --aC-Ir37":
20
consequences").
22 These same comments were quoted in the
23 See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00009187
' Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -
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
strikes. 25
activity. 26
II.
- Employes-cted7-in-retaliation- for- the- employees'Union ---- - -
_Sound_ employees...with_consequent_ adverse-effects-. - - Ins-tead--o-f--
to employees.
25 The authors of these articles will need to testify. If
NLRB-FOIA-00009188
Case 19-CA-32431
implemented.
not necessary to establish a Section 8(a)(3) violation. 27 I n
for- undamtu-lly-motivatedreasons, - di,vert- - -
employer. may-
..new_work_from_Standi.sh." and_therefox_e_misplated_Section_8(a113L.
28 Ibid.
30 See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00009189
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
diversion of unit work--that the unit employees otherwise would
engaged in a strike in the past,

33 as well as employer conduct
sub nom. O'Dovero v. NLRB, 193 F.3d 532 (DC. Cir. .1999)
(dbublebreasted -eMPlo -yer-uhlaikfully .diVelted-

work- ftoftrIts - -
365-6 .-7- (empIoyer- violated- Section- a(a)-0)--by--------
activities and also in anticipation that he would participate .
NLRB-FOIA-00009190
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
activity." 38
decision in NLRB v.. Brown Food Store 37 to argue that it is
strike. 38 Specifically,- the Court found that the use of a
an impasse in negotiations was not an unfair labor practice: 38
itself against future, wholly, speculative, strikes would
employees who were likely to honor asunion picket line in the
36
Ibid..(citation omitted).
37
380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38
See id. at 283-85.
39
See id. at 284.
40 See ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00009191
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
substantial. "42
Carolina, .while ultimately laying off experienced employees in
addition, Boeing's claim that it took this action-to avoid
Union'_s_effort.a to_negotiate_a_long=term_no_strike-agreement___
striking.
_ _ _also
. . . _ .conclude
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . .that
. _ _ _ _Boeing's
_ _ . _ _ _ _
conduct was
_ .
_ _ _ .
_We
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
41
42
See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
See NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26, 33'
43
NLRB-FOIA-00009192
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent. /44
In International Paper Co., the Board set forth
employee rights. 47
Paper. First, the harm to employees' Section . 7 rights was
any future_ .collective_ bargaining___ThirdBoeing,',s_ conduct_
228, 231 (1963). See also Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB
835; 863-64 - (1999) -, enf-.---denied - in- pertiment-p art- 2-3-3- FT3d- 831---
(4 th
Cir. 2000).
44
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
45
46
"inherently destructive" conduct f permanently subcontracting
NLRB-FOIA-00009193
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -
exercise without the possibility of a 'strike to support the
they believe that exercising their right to .concerted activity
The Board recently held in Arc Bridges, Inc -. that an
reason for withholding a regularly-scheduled wage increase ,
reason._=_that .it_.wanted _to_ .enhance._ its__ barg.aining_ posi.tion
increase because employees chose union representation."
Likewise, Boeing's stated reason for

-its decision -- that it
.Accordingly,__Boeing's
South_Carolina employees
pronouncements emphasizing
decision coupled with its publi
Section 8(a)(3).
49 See id., slip op. at 3.
NLRB-FOIA-00009194
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
A.
54 See, e.g., Overnite Transportation Co., 330 NLRB 1275; 1276
performed by employees already in the unit or by new.
employees").
NLRB-FOIA-00009195
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
jobs. 57
performed on the first line and, the surge line in Everett by
unit employees.
-The decision did not involve a basic change
_or .dire.ction;__ Boeing_does_not_intend to change_it_s_productiQn___.
could_not .have offered sufficient

_to
_ _ _change
_ _ _
its
___ _ _concessions
_ . .
_
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
58 See 321 NLRB at 617.
NLRB-FOIA-00009196
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
where to lcicate the second 787 line was a mandatory subject of
bargaining.
bargaining history; and (3) the parties' past practice.

62
where there is an express reference to the specific . type of

63
.Thus, in Ingham Regional Medical Center, the Board adopted an
operations or phases thereof (subcontracting)[. ]64

T h i s
.ght_was_rve,sted_exclA4sively vin,the Employarf.and_was_not___
61 See id: at 812, fn. 19.
waIver-of-right-to-bargad-n-about
63 See, e.g., Ingham Regional Medical Center, 342 NLRB 1259,
64 See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00009197
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
contract."
"specifically, precisely, and plainly" 67 granted Boeing the .
, agreement. As in Ingham Regional Medical Center, the other
Union notice and an opportunity to review,and recommend
8(a)(3) violation."
TIte Union's other arguments against application of the
negotiattons_for
il.e.14___CQntn3gt-
Howyer,_ during_ those mid-
65 Id. at 1260.
66 Id. at 1262.
67
S e e A l l i s o n C o r p . , 3 3 0 N L RB a t 1 3 6 5 .
88
NLRB-FOIA-00009198
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -
contract's expiration in September 2012, but Boeing made its -
notice and review provisions in Article 21.7 did not apply .
traditional Section 8(a)(5) bargaining obligations. 70 A b s e n t
IV. T h e A p p r o p r i a t e R e m e d y
the unusual circumstapces of this aase.
Thus,.if- there-Is'a -duty -td.tTerga-irfoVet- a -t-e lotatio-ri- - - - -
decision, it arises when the decision is announced and not .
December-even though-no-unit-work-wouId-be-reocated - before -----
--69-
See St. Barnabas Medical'Center, 341 NLRB 1325, 1325 (2004)
70

71
NLRB-FOIA-00009199
Case 19-CA-32431
29 -
-Logistics&Operations,---34-0--NLRB-2-55-, 25.8 (.2003-)-,- af-fd-.- -4-00 -----
the Act").
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00009200
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.
ROFs - 9
H:ADV.19-CA-32431.Response2.Boeing.dlw
NLRB-FOIA-00009201
Labor N ew s
C ontact: C onnie K elliher 206-764-0343 office, 206-755-8575 cell
B ryan C orliss 206-764-0357 office, 425-327-3512 cell
B oeing U ses C lout to B lock FederalLaw E nforcem ent A ction
T h e B o ein g C o m p an y h as lo n g b een a to p sp en d er in th e W ash in g to n leg islatu re to g ain
lo w ta x ra te s a n d o th e r c o rp o ra te b e n e fits . N o w it is try in g to u s e its c lo u t in th e o th e r
retaliatin g against its w orkers w ho engaged in collective activity b y m ovin g part o f th eir w o rk o n
th e n ew 787 D ream lin er to an o th er state. B o ein g p u b licly ad m itted th at its p rim ary m o tive w as
Y esterday, in an unprecedented attack on a federal law enforcem ent agency, B oeing's top
law yer sent a 10-page pu blic rant to the agency, attackin g and d em anding that the agency's law
en fo rcem en t effo rts b e w ith d raw n . S u ch a letter is h ig h ly u n u su al, as it seeks to u n d erm in e th e
A g en cy's au th o rity to p erfo rm its statu to ry d u ties. T yp ically, em p lo yers ch arg ed b y th e A g en cy
m ake their defenses at a legal hearing, w hich has already been scheduled, and do not seek to take
agen cy w ith n o ties to organ ized lab or, is u p for con firm ation in th e U .S . S en ate later th is year.
" In m y 28 years of practicing labor law , I have never seen an em ployer use these types of
law yer. "R ath er th an face th e m u sic at th e Ju n e 14 h earin g , th e B o ein g C o m p an y is ap p aren tly
tryin g to kill the case po litically. This tactic show s all too clearly how d esperate the C om p any is
Th e N LR B 's case again st B oeing rests upon B o eing's ow n adm issions that it so ught to
NLRB-FOIA-00009202
w hatever action it thinks m ay be necessary to avoid collective bargaining and strike activity, that
is sim ply not the law . Just as the law prohibits discrim ination against w histleblow ers or w orkers
w ho take fam ily leave, A m erica's law s protect w orkers w ho engage in collective activity.
T h is case p resen ts a sim p le issu e: D o b ig co m p an ies h av e to o b ey th e law ? If em p lo y ers
can retaliate against w orkers w ho exercise rights that are protected by law , then those rights w ill
b e g o n e. T h e N L R B 's lo n g -term p ro fessio n al R eg io n al S taff, N atio n al O ffice o f A d v ice an d
G eneral C ounsel review ed this case for a year, found convincing m erit, and issued a com plaint.
T he hearing should continue according to its rules like any law enforcem ent process.
If, as B o ein g claim s, th e case is friv o lo u s, it w ill h av e th e o p p o rtu n ity to p resen t its
arg u m en t b efo re a ju d g e o n Ju n e 1 4 in S eattle. It can ap p eal th e ju d g e's d ecisio n to m em b ers o f
the N ational L abor R elations B oard. If it is still unsatisfied, it can appeal to the federal courts.
In stead o f fo llo w in g th e ru le o f law , B o ein g is u sin g its trem en d o u s p o litical clo u t to try
to sto p th e actio n s o f an in d ep en d en t fed eral law en fo rcem en t ag en cy . S u ch tactics m ig h t w o rk
in corrupt nations w here m oney not the law rules, but should not here in A m erica.
##
NLRB-FOIA-00009203
N ikki H aley: O bam a's Silence on B oeing Is U nacceptable - W SJ.com #printM ode
Page 1 of 2
1E : D ow Jones R eprints: T his copy is for your personal. non-com m ercial use only. T o oilier presentation ready copies for distribution to your colieagues. clients or custom ers, use the
O rder R eprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit w w w .djreprints.com
O rder a reprint of this article now
S ee a sam ple reprint in P D F form at.
THEWALLSTREETJOURNAL.
M im i*
O P IN IO N
A P R IL 29. 2011
O bam a's Silence on B oeing Is U nacceptable
The president's appointees have m oved to block the com pany from building planes in m y state.H e ow es us an
explanation.
B y N IK K I H A L E Y
In O ctober 2009, B oeing, long one of the best corporations in A m erica, m ade an announcem ent that changed the
econom ic outlook of South C arolina forever: T he com pany's second line of 787 D ream liners w ould be produced in
N orth C harleston.
In choosing to m anufacture in m y state,B oeing w as exercising its right as a free enterprise in a free nation to conduct
business w herever it believed w ould best serve both the bottom line and the em ployees of its com pany.T his is not a
novel or com plicated idea.It's called capitalism .
B oeing has since poured billions of dollars into a new ,state-of-the art
facility in South C arolina's picturesque L ow C ountry along the
A tlantic coast.It has created thousands of good jobs and joined the
long tradition of distinguished and em ployee-friendly corporations
that have found a hom e, and a partner,in the Palm etto State.
W S J E ditorialB oard m em ber M ary K isseland
A ssistant E ditor Jam es F reem an discuss
W ashington's attem pt to tellB oeing w here to build its
planes.
V id eo A rch ive: O n B oein g
B oeing W ins $30B D efense C ontract
(2/24/201.1)
84
64 B lue S kies for B oeing (4/16/2011)
em D ream liner M akes First U K Landing
(7/18/2010)
T his a w in-w in for South C arolina,for B oeing,and for the global
clients w ho w ill see D ream liners rolling off the N orth C harleston line
at the rate of 10 a m onth,starting w ith the first one next year.B ut,as
is often the case,a w in for people and businesses is a loss for the labor
unions,w hich rely on coercion,bullying and undue political influence
to stay afloat.
South C arolina is a right-to-w ork state, and w e're proud that w ithin
our borders w orkers cannot be required to join a labor union as a
condition of em ploym ent. W e don't need unions playing m iddlem en
betw een our com panies and our em ployees. W e don't w ant them
forcefully inserted into our prom ising business clim ate.A nd w e w ill
not stand for them intim idating South C arolinians.
T hat is apparently too m uch for President O bam a and his union-beholden appointees at the N ational L abor R elations
B oard,w ho have asked the courts to intervene and force B oeing to stop production in South C arolina.T he N L R B w ants
B oeing to produce the planes only in W ashington state,w here its w orkers m ust belong to the International A ssociation
of M achinists and A erospace W orkers.
L et's be clear: B oeing is a great corporate citizen in W ashington and in South C arolina.T he com pany chose to com e to
http://online.w sj.com /article/SB 10001424052748703778104576287290266016016.htm l?m .. . 5 /9 /2 0 1 1

NLRB-FOIA-00009204
N ikkiH aley:O bam a's Silence on B oeing Is U nacceptable - W SJ.com #printM ode
Page 2 of 2
our state because the costof doing business is low ,our job training and w ork force are strong,and our ports are
trem endous.T he fact that w e are a right-to-w ork state is an added bonus.
T he actions by the N L R B are nothing less than a directassaulton the
2 2 right-to-w ork states across A m erica.T hey are also an
unprecedented attack on an iconic A m erican com pany that is being
told by the federalgovernm ent w hich seem s to regard its authority
as endless w here and how to build airplanes.
T he president has been silentsince his hand-selected N L R B G eneral
C ounselL afe Solom on,w ho has notyetbeen confirm ed by the U nited
States Senate as required bylaw ,chose to engage in econom ic w arfare
on behalf of the unions lastw eek.
W hile silence in this case can be assum ed to m ean consent,President
O bam a's silence is not acceptable notto m e,and certainly notto the
m illions of South C arolinians w ho are rightly aghast at the thought of
the greatest econom ic developm ent success our state has seen in
decades being ripped aw ay by federal bureaucrats w ho appear to be
little m ore than union puppets.
A FP /G etty Im ages
T his is not just a South C arolina issue,and President O bam a ow es the
people of our country a response.If they getaw ay w ith this
governm ent-dictated econom ic larceny,the unions w on't stop in our
state.
T he nation deserves an explanation as to w hy the president's appointees are doing the m achinist union's dirty w ork on
the backs of the businesses and w orkers of South C arolina.
M s.H aley,a Republican,is governor ofSouth C arolina.
C opyright 2011 D ow Jones & C om pany, Inc. A llR ights R eserved
T his copy is for your personal, non-com m ercialuse only. D istribution and use of this m aterialare governed by our S ubscriber A greem ent and by copyright
law . F or non-personaluse or to order m ultiple copies, please contact D ow Jones R eprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
w w w .djreprints.com
http://online.w sj.com /article/SB 10001424052748703778104576287290266016016.htm l?m .. . 5/9/2011

NLRB-FOIA-00009205
B oeing to Fight N L R B C om plaint B acked by U nion :: en.A sturi.as
In te rn a tio n a l N e w s
& P re ss R e le a se s
1::...)
Page 1 of 4
E A sgtifid.2 pusonaiizath,
A d s b y G o o g le
N LR B
U nion
D oing
C harleston S C M ap
Ia m U n io n IA M h a s N e g o tia te d O ve r 3 0 0 P a g e s C o n tin e n ta l A tte n d a n t W o rk R u le s. IA M N O W .o rg
aoei_n_g Jobg F o cu s Y o u r $ 1 0 0 K + Jo b S e a rch - S e a rch 6 5 ,0 0 0 + H a n d -S cre e n e d Jo b s!

w w w .T heLadders.com
L a b o r L a w y e r-D C -M D E xte n sive E xp e rie n ce R e p re se n tin g G o ve rn m e n t & P riva te S e cto r U n io n s w w w .S h e n
0 El
B o e in g to F ig h t N L R B C o m p la in t B a c k e d b y U n io n
ions:
..:justfort1-.1:!
ublic se cto l
Vt.norp:.

r>
T h e B o e in g C o m p a n y sa id it w ill vig o ro u sly
co n te st a co m p la in t b ro u g h t b e fo re th e
N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd (N L R B )
to d a y b y th e le a d e rsh ip o f th e In te rn a tio n a l
A sso cia tio n o f M a ch in ists a n d A e ro sp a ce
W o rke rs (IA M ). T h e co m p la in t ch a lle n g e s
B o e in g 's 2 0 0 9 d e cisio n to co m p le m e n t its
p ro d u ctio n ca p a city in W a sh in g to n sta te
w ith a n e w a sse m b ly p la n t in S o u th C a ro lin a
a n d se e ks to fo rce B o e in g to p la ce its
s e c o n d 7 8 7 fin a l a s s e m b ly lin e in P u g e t
S o u n d in ste a d o f C h a rle sto n .
"T h is cla im is le g a lly frivo lo u s a n d
re p re se n ts a ra d ica l d e p a rtu re fro m b o th
N L R B a n d S u p re m e C o u rt p re ce d e n t," sa id
B o e in g E xe cu tive V ice P re sid e n t a n d
G e n e ra l C o u n se l J. M ich a e l L u ttig . "B o e in g
h a s e ve ry rig h t u n d e r b o th fe d e ra l la w a n d
its co lle ctive b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t to b u ild
ca
p
a
ci
ty
o
u
tsi
d
e
o
f
th
e
P
u
g
e
t
S
o
u n d re g io n ."
a d d itio n a l U .S . p ro d u c tio n
U n io n o fficia ls h a ve b e e n p re ssin g th e N L R B fo r m o re th a n a ye a r to b rin g fo rw a rd th e co m p la in t a n d
fo rce B o e in g to a b a n d o n p la n s to p ro d u ce th re e 7 8 7 a irp la n e s p e r m o n th in th e co m p a n y's n e w N o rth
C h a rle sto n , S .C ., fa cto ry a n d b u ild th e m in ste a d in P u g e t S o u n d . W ith to d a y's a ctio n b y th e N L R B 's
a ctin g g e n e ra l co u n se l, th e b o a rd n o w w ill b e g in a fo rm a l p ro ce e d in g to h e a r th e IA M 's a lle g a tio n s.
th e
B o e in g a lso w a s critica l o f th e tim in g o f th e co m p la in t, w h ich co m ffe;

s a fu ll 1 7 rillE
m oa r7n= th
s a fte
,,Z 7r
p ep ,,
3M
5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009206
B oeing to FightN LR B C om plaintB acked by U nion ::en.A Sturi.as
Page 2 of 4
co m p an y an n o u n ced p lan s to exp an d its m an u factu rin g cap acity in th e U n ited S tates in S o u th
C aro lin a. C o n stru ctio n o f th e facto ry is n early co m p lete an d th e co m p an y h as h ired m o re th an 1,000
n ew w o rkers. F in al assem b ly o f th e first airp lan e is slated to b eg in in Ju ly.
B o ein g h as m ad e it clear th at n o n e o f th e p ro d u ctio n jo b s created in S o u th C aro lin a h as co m e at th e
exp en se o f jo b s in P u g et S o u n d an d th at n o t a sin g le u n io n m em b er h as b een ad versely affected . In
fact, IA M em p lo ym en t in P u g et S o u n d h as in creased b y ap p ro xim ately 2,000 w o rkers sin ce th e
d ecisio n to exp an d in S o u th C aro lin a w as m ad e in O cto b er 2009.
P rio r to th at d ecisio n , B o ein g h eld exten sive d iscu ssio n s w ith th e IA M o ver th e p o ten tial p lacem en t o f
th e n ew 787 p ro d u ctio n cap acity in P u g et S o u n d . T h o se d iscu ssio n s en d ed w ith B o ein g u n ab le to
reach ag reem en t w ith u n io n lead ersh ip o n d em an d s th at w o u ld h ave h am p ered th e co m p an y's
co m p etitiven ess in th e in creasin g ly co m p etitive g lo b al m arket fo r larg e co m m ercial airp lan es.
L u ttig said B o ein g w as co n fid en t th at th e claim w o u ld b e rejected b y th e fed eral co u rts. H e also
em p h asized th at th e co m p an y w ill b eg in assem b lin g 787s in S o u th C aro lin a th is su m m er, as p lan n ed .
"W e fu lly exp ect to co m p lete o u r n ew state-o f-th e-art facility in S o u th C aro lin a in th e w eeks ah ead ,
an d w e w ill b e p ro d u cin g 787s ? A m erica's n ext g reat exp o rt ? fro m o u r facto ries in b o th P u g et S o u n d
an d S o u th C aro lin a fo r d ecad es to co m e," h e said .
C ontact:
T im N eale, 703-465-3220
S O U R C E B oeing
N ew s fro m P R N ew sw ire U S A - C H IC A G O , A p ril 20, 2011
S h a re : a P a
N e w s fro m - 2 0 1 1 -0 4 -2 0 1 9 :4 8 :0 2 S e ctio n : U S A .
C o m m en ts
B e th e fir s t to :cortirneht.(,
A d d y o u r co m m e n t
Y our nam e
Y o u r e-m ail (p rivate)
C om m ent
S tate/Local G ove rnm ent to D o
e n s .r . 1 6 1 1 -k I
5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009207
Charleston R egionalB usiness Journalj Charleston,SC
Page 1 of 2
Print
B o ein g execu tive says S .C . is
'co rn ersto n e' o f co m p an y's fu tu re
The airplane-m aker's vice president and generalm anager of supply chain m anagem ent and
operations said Thursday that Boeing's and the state's efforts to train w orkers here w ill"m ake
S outh C arolina one of the great,great aerospace regions in the w orld."
By D anielBrock
dbrock@ scbiznew s.com
Pu b lish ed N o v.12 ,2010
A Boeing C o.executive said Thursday that the com pany plans to m ake its S .C .operations the "cornerstone" of
the plane-m aker's future.
R ay C onner,vice president and generalm anager of supply chain m anagem ent and
operations for the plane-m aker,said that Boeing's and the state's efforts to train w orkers
here w illeventually "m ake S outh C arolina one of the great,great aerospace regions in the
w orld."
C onner's com m ents,during a speech at the S .C .C ham ber of C om m erce's 31st annual
sum m it at the W ild D unes R esort,seem ed to support talk am ong industry experts w ho say
that C harleston could becom e Boeing's focalpoint in the years ahead.
C onner,an industry veteran w ho started w ith Boeing in 1977 as a m echanic he describes him self as a "Boeing
P uget S ound guy" said the com pany is evolving.
"W hen Iw as first given the assignm ent," he said,"Iw as really excited about the opportunity to have a role in
creating a new Boeing,and that's really w hat w e're doing here,w e're creating a new Boeing."
http://w w w .charlestonbusiness.corn/new s/36827/print
11/18/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00009208
Charleston R egionalBusiness JournalI Charleston,SC
Page 2 of 2
That sentim ent w illcom e into focus over the next severalm onths,as Boeing com pletes its 787 D ream liner plant
in N orth C harleston and production begins in July 2011.The first w ide-body jets are scheduled to rollout of the
$750 m illion facility in 2012.
W hen the line is fully operational,three planes w illbe churned out each m onth.
"For the last 94 years,our com pany has been Seattle's m ost recognizable," C onner said."A nd every airplane,
every com m ercialairplane,that w e have delivered has com e out of one our hangars on the Puget Sound.In early
2012,that is no longer going to be the case."
A lthough the first D ream liners from that Puget Sound ,plant,in Everett,W ash. are supposed to be delivered
in M arch,a fire aboard a test flight M onday has indefinitely halted the testing program w hile the com pany
investigates.
Boeing officials said thata pow er controlpanelfailure led to an insulation fire thatcaused "significant" dam age to
the panel.Further inspection w illtake severaldays.It rem ains unclear w hether significant dam age w as done to
any adjacent structure or system s,or w hether the incident w illcause delivery delays,officials said.
"W e justhad a slightlittle m ishap the other day," C onner said during his speech."That's w hy w e flight-test,right?"
Boeing lost eight 787 sales this w eek,yet C onner said that 30% to 40% of the com pany's $321 billion backlog is
tied to the new plane,w hich is three years behind schedule after num erous setbacks.
A s for the w ork force in South C arolina,C onner said that som eone w ho starts as a new hire at the N orth
C harleston plant could one day run it or assum e an even larger role w ith Boeing.
"Ithappens," he said.
R each D anielB rock at 843-849-3144.
P rint
http://w w w .char1estonbusiness.corn/new s/36827/print
11/18/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00009209
Fire on B oeing 787 D ream liner H alts T est Flights - N Y T im es.com
rH O M
E P A G E
EE_ Ix _
S u b scrib e to T h e T im es L o g In : R eg ister N o w H elp I Tim esP eople
I
T O D A Y 'S P A P E R L V ID E O 1
M O ST P O P U L A R I T IM E S T O P IC S
4 1 I:_
inn
Page 1 of 4
. .
Search A llN Y Tim es.com
B u s in e s s D a y
1 N G D IR E C T
.
'W O R L D U .S . :N .Y . / R E G IO N I B U SIN E SS T E C H N O L O G Y SC IE N C E
H E A L T H S P O R T S O P IN IO N A R T S ' S T Y L E T R A V E L J O B S R E A L
EstATg.
ii,A U T O S
S eaton ;
G lo b a l I D e a lB o o k I M a rk e ts I E c o n o m y E n e rg y I M e d li P e rs o n a l T e c h
Y our M o n ey . :.
sm aii:B usoesk.
In-Flight Fire E ndangers D elivery D ate for
B oeing 787
R ic a = S e m o s;L-a-ted o M orning T im es ; is A sso c ia te d rP se s
The B oein g 787 D ream liner that m ade an em ergency landing at Laredo International A irport in Texas
durin g a test flight on Tuesday after an onboard tire.
By C H R IST O P H E R D R E W
Pu b lish ed : N ovem b er 10. 2010
B oeing halted test flights on W ednesday of its 787
Eirgam liner,a day after an onboard fire forced an
em ergency landing,reinforcing expectations that the long-
aw aited plane faced m ore delays.
El
RECO M M END
T W IT T E R
C S IG N IN T O E .
M A IL
IR P R IN T
A d d to P o rtfo lio
B oeing C o
R olls-R oyce P lc
E l C red it Su isse G ro u p A .G
G o to your Portfolio a
Severalanalysts said they
doubted that B oeing,w hich is
counting on the jet to vault it
past A irbus in totalsales,w ould
m eet its plan to deliver the first
787 by February.
le i R E P R IN T S
.
.
SN A R E
crIO M
ACADEM Y AW AR00
T he plane,the first passenger jet m ade substantially w ith lightw eight carbon
com posites that are supposed to greatly cut fuelcosts,is already running
nearly three years late.A nd given other recent problem s w ith suppliers and a
test engine,som e analysts said,B oeing m ight be able to deliver only about tw o
dozen of the planes next year,dow n from earlier estim ates of 40 to 50 or
Log in to see w hat your
friends are sharing on
nytithes.com .P rivacy P olicy W hat's This?
W h a t's P o p u la r N o w
III
http://w w w .nytim es.com /2010/11/1 1 /businessillboeing.htm l?_r=1& src=busln
11/16/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00009210
Page 2 of4
.Fire on Boeing 787 D ream liner H alts TestFlights -N Y Tim es.com
m ore.
"T here w illbe another delay," said R ichard L .A boulafia,vice presidentfor
analysis at the T ealG roup,an aviation consulting firm in Fairfax,V a.
E ven if the fire had not occurred on the test plane,"there w ould stillbe
another delay," he said."T here are stilltoo m any unknow ns."
B oeing said W ednesday that it w as evaluating w hat had gone w rong on the
test flight and had suspended flights for its six test planes.
C om pany officials said sm oke entered the cabin from an electronics
com partm ent in the rear of the plane,forcing an em ergency landing in
L aredo,T ex.Forty-tw o engineers and crew m em bers w ere aboard.O ne
suffered m inor injuries in evacuating by slide.
B oeing has been counting heavily on the D ream liner,w hich has attracted
m ore advance orders 847 than any plane in history.Its shares fell3.2
percent,to $67.07 a share,in trading on W ednesday.
B oeing said in a statem ent that it appeared that a pow er controlpanelin the
electronics com partm ent w ould need to be replaced,and other repairs m ight
be necessary.It said it w ould take severaldays to analyze data from the test
E -M A IL E D S L O G G E D I
V IE W E D ierity of the problem .B oeing added that it "cannot
determ ine the im pact of this event on the overallprogram schedule,untilw e
have w orked our w ay through the data."
T he FederalA viation A dm inistration,w hich m ust certify new planes as safe,
is also investigating w hat caused the fire.
H ans J.W eber,an independent safety consultant,said if the fire stem m ed
from a flaw in basic electricalcom ponents,the problem could be relatively
easy to fix.B ut if it w ere linked to m ore advanced electricalcontrols that help
the D ream liner save fuel,that could require m ore tim e-consum ing changes.
T he plane's developm ent has been m arred by persistent problem s w ith
B oeing's far-flung supply netw ork.C om pany executives have acknow ledged
that they farm ed out too m uch design and production w ork and did not
initially keep close enough tabs on suppliers.
B ut even though they have m ade an all-out push to m eet their latest delivery
schedule,m ore problem s have cropped up over the last severalm onths.
6.
A s Studios C utB ack,Investors See O pening
7.
B ucks:3 C reditC ards W ithoutForeign
Exchange Fees
! 8.
V oices of Foreclosure Speak D aily A bout
D esperation and M isery
A R olls-R oyce engine m eant to be used in one of the 787 test planes failed in a
!
test plant in B ritain in A ugust,spew ing out debris.
B oeing cited that engine problem in saying it w ould push back delivery of the
first D ream liner for the fifth tim e,from late this year to February 2011. R olls-
R oyce has said it is confident it can fix the engine by that date."
9.U nder A ttack,Fed O fficials D efend B uying of
B onds
to.W eaker D ollar Seen'ks U nlikely to C ure
Joblessness
R olls-R oyce also said this w eek that the problem on the engine for B oeing did
iG o to Com plete List
not seem to be related to the failure last w eek of another R olls-R oyce engine
on an A irbus A 38o jum bo jet.T hat engine jettisoned debris w hile the plane,
http://w w w .nytim es.com /2010/11/11/businessillboeing.htm l? J=1& src=busln
11/16/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00009211
Fire on B oeing 787 D ream liner H alts T est Flights - N Y T im es.com
Page 3 of 4
operated by Q antas A irw ays,w as in flight.
Boeing has had to tellsuppliers around the w orld to haltparts deliveries three
tim es this year because A lenia A eronautica,a unitofFinm eccanica ofItaly,
could notdeliver the 787's horizontaltails on tim e.The latestparts delay
occurred in late O ctober.Boeing officials have said thatpoor w orkm anship by
A lenia and other suppliers forced Boeing to rew ork m any parts,further
slow ing its Production line.
A lenia agreed lastw eek to fix the problem s by year-end.
M r.A boulafia,the TealG roup analyst,said he doubted thatBoeing w ould be
ready to deliver the firstD ream liner before the second quarter of 2011. R obert
Spingarn,an analystatC reditSuisse,said thatbefore the fire broke outon the
testplane,he had also concluded thatthe firstdelivery w as notlikely until
A pril.W ith allthe rew orking ofparts,he said,"the aircraft,atthis point,is
being hand-built." H e said Boeing knew there w as "an im portantstatem entto
be m ade" in delivering thatfirstplane as soon as possible.
Buthe said thatBoeing stillhad so m any fixes to m ake on the next

2 0 to 2 5
planes thatitw ould be hard pressed to deliver m ore than 27 planes nextyear.
I R obertStallard,an analystw ith R BC C apitalM arkets,said in a research note
I earlier this w eek thatBoeing executives told him on M onday thatassem bly of
m any ofthe first30 aircraftw ould take longer than expected.M r.Stallard
I said he now expected Boeing to deliver only 2 4 ofthe planes in 2 0 1 1 .
H e said Boeing's chiefexecutive,W ..Jam es M .cN erney..).L.,w ho w as atthe
m eeting,believed thatthe com pany w ould probably need to build 40 to 50
D ream liners before overcom ing allthe potentialproblem s.
Still,investors have been patientw ith Boeing over the delays.Itstillhas a
I tw o-to three-year edge over A irbus in building m ore fuel:efficientcarbon
planes,and the dem and for new planes is strong as airlines em erge from the
recession.
A v ersio n o f th is article 3 1 )p cu red in p rim ih lo v etrh ei 1 1 .
2010. on page B 1 of the N ew York

SdIti011.
C o n n ect w ith T h e N ew Y o rk T im es o n F aceb o o k.
E l S IG N IN T O E -
M AIL
G et F ree E -m all A lerts o n T h ese T o p ics
la P R IN T
A irlin es an d A irp lan es
alk I
R E PR IN T S
B oeing C o
L42..] Tests and Testing
i IN S ID E N Y T IM E S .C O M
B O O K S a
! N .Y .! R E G IO N
O PIN IO N
1 SPO R T S s
L41.
1 O PIN IO N I
ISC IE N C E I
O p-Ed:Left,
http://w w w .nytim es.com /2010/11/1 1 /businessillboeing.htm l?_r=1& src=busIn
11/16/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00009212
524
D E C IS IO N S O F T H E N A T IO N A L L A B O R R E L A T IO N S B O A R D
D etroit N ew spapers A gency, d/b/a D etroit N ew spa-
pers an d D etroit M ailers U nion N o.2040 Inter-
national B rotherhood of T eam sters,A F L -C IO ;
T eam sters L ocal N o. 372, Internation al B roth -
erhood of T eam sters, A F L -C IO an d L ocal U n-
ion N o.131N ,G raphic C om m unications Interna-
tional U nion,A F L -C IO
T he D etroit N ew s,Inc. an d T he N ew spaper G uild of
D etroit, L ocal 22, T he N ew spaper G uild, A F L -
C IO .
C a se s 7 -C A -4 0 7 5 9 , 7 -C A -4 0 9 4 3 , a n d 7 -
C A -4 0 9 4 4
Jan u ary 2 1 , 2 0 0 0
O R D E R D E N Y IN G M O T IO N S
B Y C H A IR M A N T R U E S D A L E A N D M E M B E R S FO X
A N D H U R TG EN
O n Ju ly 1 9 , 1 9 9 9 , in C a se s 7 -C A -4 0 7 5 9 , 7 -C A -
4 0 9 4 3 , a n d 7 -C A -4 0 9 4 4 , th e G e n e ra l C o u n se l o f th e
N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd issu e d a c o n so lid a te d
co m p lain t alleg in g th at th e R esp o n d en ts v io lated S ectio n
8 (a)(3 ) an d (1 ) o f th e A ct b y 'd isch arg in g 5 9 em p lo y ees
fo r en g ag in g in p ro tected strik e activ ity ag ain st th e R e-
sp o n d en ts.
O n A u g u st 1 0 , 1 9 9 9 , th e, R esp o n d en ts filed a m o tio n to
d ism iss th e c o n o lid a te d c o m p la in t. O n A u g u st 2 3 ,
1 9 9 9 , th e B o ard issu ed a N o tice to .S h o w C au se w h y th e
m o tio n sh o u ld n o t b e g ran ted . T h e R esp o n d en ts filed a
su p p o rtin g b rief an d th e G en eral C o u n sel an d th e C h arg -
in g P arties U n io n s each filed resp o n ses. T h ereafter, o n
D ecem b er 1 3 , 1 9 9 9 , th e R esp o n d en ts filed a seco n d m o -
tio n to d ism iss a n d su p p o rtin g b rie f, a n d th e G e n e ra l
C o u n se l file d a re sp o n se .
T h e N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s B o ard h as d eleg ated its
au th o rity in th is p ro ceed in g to a th ree-m em b er p an el.
F o r th e reaso n s set fo rth b elo w , w e d en y th e R esp o n -
d en ts' m o tio n s to d ism iss.'
P ro ced u ral H isto ry
O n Ju ly 1 3 , 1 9 9 5 , six u n io n s re p re se n tin g a p p ro x i-
m ately 2 0 0 0 em p lo y ees w en t o n strik e ag ain st th e D etro it
N ew sp ap er A g en cy (D N A ), th e D etro it N ew s, an d th e
D e tro it F re e P re ss.' T h e strik e la ste d u n til F e b ru a ry
1 9 9 7 , w h en th e u n io n s m ad e an u n co n d itio n al o ffer to
retu rn to w o rk . D u rin g th e co u rse o f th e strik e, n u m er-
o u s em p lo y ees w ere d isch arg ed o r o th erw ise d iscip lin ed .
B e tw e e n Ja n u a ry 2 4 , 1 9 9 6 , a n d O c to b e r 6 , 1 9 9 7 , th e
C h arg in g P arty U n io n s filed u n fair lab o r p ractice ch arg es
re g a rd in g th e d isc ip lin e a n d d isc h a rg e s o f strik e rs fo r
alleg ed strik e-related m isco n d u ct b etw een Ju ly 2 6 , 1 9 9 5 ,
an d S ep tem b er 1 5 , 1 9 9 7 . T h e G en eral C o u n sel th ereafter
T h e R esp o n d en ts' req u est fo r o ral arg u m en t, w h ich th e G en eral
C ounsel has opposed, is also denied as the pleadings adequately present
the issues and positions of the parties.
2 In D etroit N ew spapers, 3 2 6 N L R B 7 0 0 (1 9 9 8 ), th e B o ard fo u n d
th e strik e to b e an u n fair lab o r p ractice strik e an d th e strik ers to b e
unfair labor practice strikers or in sym pathy w ith such strikers.
issu ed co n so lid ated co m p lain ts in C ases 7 -C A -3 8 0 7 9 , et
al., alleg in g th at certain o f th ese strik in g em p lo y ees w ere
d iscip lin ed o r d isch arg ed b ecau se o f th eir co n certed p ro -
tected activ ity related to th e strik e. T h e h earin g o n th e
co n so lid ated co m p lain ts w as h eld b efo re A d m in istrativ e
L aw Ju d g e R ich ard S cu lly fro m A p ril 7 , 1 9 9 7 , to S ep -
tem b er 2 3 , 1 9 9 8 , an d co n tin u ed th ereafter fro m N o v em -
b er 3 0 , 1 9 9 8 , to M arch 1 8 , 1 9 9 9 , to tak e reco rd ev id en ce
reg ard in g fiv e ad d itio n al d iscrim in atees w h o m th e ju d g e
h ad allo w ed to b e ad d ed to th e co m p lain t. O n D ecem b er
th e ju d g e issu e d h is d e c isio n .'
17, 1999,
T h e ch arg es in th e in stan t p ro ceed in g w ere filed d u rin g
th e c o u rse o f th e h e a rin g in th e fo re g o in g p ro c e e d in g
b ased o n ev id en ce o b tain ed d u rin g th at p ro ceed in g . T h e
ch arg es alleg e th at R esp o n d en ts D N A an d D etro it N ew s
u n law fu lly d isch a rg ed a n u m b e r o f ad d itio n a l strik e rs
w h ile issu in g lesser fo rm s o f d iscip lin e to n o n strik ers fo r
c o m p a rab le o r m o re sev e re a lle g ed m isco n d u ct. A ll o f
th e d isch a rg es alleg e d in th e se ch a rg es o cc u rred m o re
th an 6 m o n th s b efo re th e filin g o f th e ch arg es.
B ased o n th ese ad d itio n al ch arg es, o n S ep tem b er 2 3 ,
1 9 9 8 , th e last d ay o f th e h earin g in C ases 7 -C A -3 8 0 7 9 ,
et al., th e G en eral C o u n sel m o v ed to am en d th e co n so li-
d ated co m p lain ts in th at p ro ceed in g to ad d 7 7 ad d itio n al
d isc rim in a te e s. T h e R e sp o n d e n ts o p p o se d th e m o tio n
n o tin g th a t th e re h a d a lre a d y b e e n n u m e ro u s a m e n d -
m en ts an d co n so lid atio n s, th at th e h earin g h ad alread y
lasted o v er a y ear an d a h alf, an d th at reo p en in g th e h ear-
in g to litig ate th e ad d itio n al d iscrim in atees w o u ld u n d u ly
p ro lo n g th e trial ev en fu rth er. T h e ju d g e d en ied th e G en -
e ra l C o u n se l's m o tio n , fin d in g n o g o o d c a u se fo r
am en d m en t, an d th e B o ard su b seq u en tly d en ied th e G en -
eral C o u n sel's req u est fo r sp ecial p erm issio n to ap p eal
th e ju d g e's ru lin g o n th e g ro u n d th at n o ab u se o f d iscre-
tio n h ad b een sh o w n . T h e B o ard n o ted , h o w ev er, th at it
d id n o t p a ss o n w h e th e r th e a lle g a tio n s so u g h t to b e
ad d ed w ere b arred b y S ectio n I0 (b ) o r w h eth er th e alle-
g atio n s co u ld b e p ro p erly p led an d litig ated sep arately .
T h ereafter, o n Ju ly 1 9 , 1 9 9 9 , th e R eg io n al D irecto r is-
su ed th e in stan t co m p lain t an d n o tice o f h earin g alleg in g
th at R esp o n d en t D N A d isch arg ed 5 8 em p lo y ees an d R e-
sp o n d en t D etro it N ew s d isch arg ed 1 em p lo y ee b ecau se
o f th eir assistan ce to th e C h arg in g P arty U n io n s an d b e-
c a u se th e y e n g a g e d in c o n c e rte d p ro te c te d a c tiv ity b y
c e asin g w o rk an d e n g a g in g in a strik e a g ain st th e R e-
sp o n d en ts. T h ese d iscrim in atees w ere p art o f th e g ro u p
o f d iscrim in atees th at th e G en eral C o u n sel h ad so u g h t to
in clu d e b y am en d m en t to th e co n so lid ated co m p lain ts in
C a se s 7 -C A -3 8 0 7 9 , e t a l., in its m o tio n o f S e p te m b e r
2 3 , 1 9 9 8 . T h e co m p lain t alleg es th at th e alleg atio n s are
n o t b arred b y S ectio n 1 0 (b ) sin ce th ey are "clo sely re-
la te d " to th e p e n d in g tim e ly -file d c h a rg e s in C a se s 7 -
C A -3 8 0 7 9 , e t a l., u n d e r R edd-I, Inc., 2 9 0 N L R B 1 1 1 5
(1 9 8 8 ).
T he tim e period for filing exceptions has not yet run.
330 N L R B N o.81
NLRB-FOIA-00009213
D E T R O IT N E W S P A P E R S
O n A ugust 10 and D ecem ber 13,1999,R espondents
D N A and D etroit N ew s filed the instant m otions to dis-
m iss w ith the B oard.4 In their first m otion,the R espon-
dents contend that the allegations of the com plaint are
barred by Section 10(b) because they are notcontained in
a tim ely filed charge.T he R espondents argue that the
"closely related" doctrine under

R edd-/ exceeds the
B oard's authority and,in any event,is inapplicable here
since the charges in C ases 7 C A -38079,etal.,have al-
ready been fully litigated and the record in thatproceed-
ing is closed. T he R espondents also contend that the
new allegations are barred by the policy against piece-
m eallitigation.In their second m otion,the R espondents
contend that Section 10(b) also bars the com plaint as to
11 of the alleged discrim inatees because these individu-
als w ere notidentified in any underlying charge.
A nalysis and D iscussion
T he B oard has held thatthe G eneralC ounselm ay add
com plaint allegations that w ould otherw ise be barred
from litigation by Section 10(b) of the A ct5if the allega-
tions are closely related to allegations of a tim ely filed
charge. R edd-I, supra.T he B oard's test for determ ining
relatedness w as sum m arized in N ickle s B a ke ry o f In d i-
ana, 296 N LR B 927,928 (1989):
First,the B oard w illlook atw hether the otherw ise un-
tim ely allegations involve the sam e legal theory as the
allegations in the pending tim ely charge.Second,the
B oard w ill look at w hether the otherw ise untim ely alle-
gations arise from the sam e factualcircum stances or se-
quence of events as the pending tim ely charge.Finally,
the B oard m ay look atw hether a respondentw ould raise
sim ilar defenses to [the] allegations.[footnotes om itted].
A pplying this test,'w e find thatthe R espondents have
failed to establish thatsum m ary dism issal-is w arranted.
T he R espondents also filed a com plaint and m otion in F ederal dis-
trict court seeking to enjoin the prosecution ol'the instant unfair labor
practice proceeding. T he district court action alleges that the issuance
of the instant com plaint and notice of hearing is contrary, to the ex-
pressed statutory m andate of S ec. 10(b) and the litigation should be
barred under Leedom V . K yne, 358 U .S . (1958). O n S eptem ber 9, 1999,
the district court issued an order canceling the injunction hearing and
declaring that all further district court proceedings w ould be held in
abeyance until the B oard had m ade its determ ination concerning juris-
d ic tio n .
5 S ec. 10(b) provides in pertinent part that "no com plaint shall issue
based upon any unfair labor practice occurring m ore than six m onths
prior to the filing, of the charge w ith the B oard and the service of a copy
thereof upon the person against w hom such charge is m ade ...."
6 W e reject th e R esp o n d en ts' assertio n th at th e B o ard 's clo sely -
related doctrine exceed s the B oard's statutory au thority under S ec.
I0(b). T he S uprem e C ourt has held that the B oard can issue com plaints
on uncharged allegations w hen they are of "the sam e class of violations
as those set up in the charge" and that S ec. I0(b) does not preclude the
B oard from "dealing adequately w ith unfair labor practices w hich are
related to those alleged in the charge and w hich grow out of them w hile
.
the proceeding is pending -before the B oard."

N a tio n a l L ico rice v.
N LR B , 309 U .S . 350, 369 (1940); quoted in N L R B v. F a in M illin g C o .,
3 60 U .S . 3 0 1, 30 7 (1 9 59 ). Ind eed , several circuit cou rts o f app eals
have approved the B oard's specific R edd-/ test. S ee D o n L e e D istrib u -
to r. In c. (W a rre n ) v. N L R B ,
145 F .3d 834, 844 (6th C ir. 1998); F P C
525
First,both sets of allegations share a com m on legalthe-
ory based on the alleged discrim ination against the dis-
charged em ployees.8 S econd, both sets of allegations
share sim ilar factual circum stances: each alleged dis-
charge arose out of the sam e strike,involve the sam e
types of asserted strike related m isconduct and the R e-
spondents used the sam e system to gather evidence relat-
ing to the alleged m isconduct and to m ake their dis-
charge decisions.Further,the C harging Parties are the
sam e and tw o of the R espondents nam ed in the instant
com plaint w ere nam ed in the underlying consolidated
com plaints.T hird,the R espondents are likely to raise
the sam e defense to the instant com plaint as they have
m aintained in litigating the underlying com plaint,
nam ely that the discharges w ere all law fully based on
strikers'unprotected picket line m isconduct.W e also
note thatatleastfive of the alleged discrim inatees in the
instantcom plaintw ere discharged for incidents thatw ere
litigated in the earlier proceeding.
B ased on the pleadings and the contentions of the par-
ties,w e find the com plaint allegations to be closely re-
lated to the tim ely charge allegations in C ases 7 C A -
38079 etal.
W e further find that the G eneral C ounsel has not en-
gaged in im perm issible piecem eallitigation by litigating
these discharges in tw o separate proceedings.T he B oard
does notrequire thatan unfair labor practice charge filed
during the pendency of another unfair labor practice pro-
ceeding concerning the sam e R espondentbe consolidated
into that proceeding.

F ro n tie r H o te l & C a sin o , 324
H o ld in g s. In c. v. N L R B , 64 F .3d 935 (4th C ir. 1995); T eam sters Local
1 7 0 v. N L R B , 9 9 3 F .2 d 9 9 0 (1 st C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); an d N L R B v. O ve rn ite
T ra n sp o rta tio n C o , 9 3 8 F .2 d 8 1 5 (7 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). F o r th e reaso n s
discussed, infra, w ith respect to the R espondents'contention that the
com plaint violates the policy against piecem eal litigation, w e also reject
the R espondents'contention that the "closely related" doctrine is inap-
plicable in the circum stances of this case.
:5 In ruling on a m otion to dism iss under S ec. 102.24 of the B oard'

R ules, the B oard construes the com plaint in the light m ost favorable to
the G eneral C ounsel, accepts all factual allegations as true, and deter-
m ines w hether the G eneral C ounsel can prove an set of facts in sup-
port of his claim s that w ould entitle him to relief. S ee generally A n-
d re w s v. S ta te o f O h io , 104 F .3d 803, 806 (6th C ir. 1997) (discussing
F R C P 1 2 (b )(6 )). S ee also

C o n le y v. G ib so n , 3 5 5 U .S . 4 1 , 4 5 -4 6
(1957). U nder this standard, w e accept the version of events as stated
in the G eneral C ounsel's pleadings. O ur denial of the R espondents'
M otions for dism issal, how ever, does not preclude the R espondents
from raising their 10(b) argum ents betbre the adm inistrative law judge
assigned to these cases.
W hile not necessary to a finding of relatedness under the test of
R edd-1 and N ickles B akery, C hairm an T ruesdale and M em ber F ox note
that both the allegations of the instant com plaint and the underlying
consolidated com plaints involve the sam e section of the A ct.

R oss
S tores. 329 N L R B 573 (1999).
M em ber H urtgen dissented in R oss S tores.

H ow ever, here, unlike
R oss S tores, the com plaint allegations at issue'involve the sam e sec-
tions of the A ct as the tim ely filed charges as w ell as the sam e types of
conduct (discipline of striking em ployees for purported strike m iscon-
duct). F or these reasons, and those set forth above, M em ber H urtgen
agrees that the R espondents have not established, at this juncture, that
dism issal of the com plaint is w arranted on 10(b) grounds.
NLRB-FOIA-00009214
526
D EC ISIO N S O F TH E N A TIO N A L
LA B O R R ELA TIO N S B O A R D
N L R B 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 2 6 (1 9 9 7 ). S u ch a ru le w o u ld im p ro p erly
in terfere w ith th e G en eral C o u n sel's d iscretio n an d allo w
an em p lo y er to in d efin itely d elay th e u ltim ate litig atio n
o f a ch arg e.
H a rriso n S te e l C a stin g s C o .,
2 5 5 N L R B
1 4 2 6 , 1 4 2 7 (1 9 8 1 ). It is tru e th at th e G en eral C o u n sel's
d iscretio n is n o t u n lim ited . T h u s, th e B o ard w ill g en er-
ally n o t p erm it th e G en eral C o u n sel to relitig ate th e law -
fu ln ess o f th e sam e act o r co n d u ct as a v io latio n o f d if-
feren t sectio n s o f th e A ct o r to relitig ate th e sam e ch arg es
S e rv ic e E m p lo y e e s L o c a l 8 7
in d iffe re n t c a se s.
(C resleigh M anag em ent),

3 2 4 N L R B 7 7 4 , 7 7 5 (1 9 9 7 )
(discussing Je ffe rso n C h e m ica l C o .,

2 0 0 N L R B 9 9 2
(1 9 7 2 ), an d
P e yto n P a ckin g C o .,
1 2 9 N L R B 1 3 5 8
(1 9 6 1 )). H o w ev er, co n trary to th e R esp o n d en ts' asser-
tio n , in th e in stan t p ro ceed in g th e G en eral C o u n sel d o es
n o t seek to litig ate d isch arg es u n d er d ifferen t sectio n s o f
th e A ct o r in clu d e d isch arg es th at w ere alleg ed an d liti-
g ated in a p rio r p ro ceed in g . A lth o u g h , as n o ted ab o v e,
so m e o f th e in cid en ts lead in g to th e d isch arg es w ere liti-
g ated in a p rio r p ro ceed in g , n o n e o f th e d isch arg es o f th e
d iscrim in atees alleg ed in th e in stan t co m p lain t h av e b een
previously litigated.
H ere, as in d icated ab o v e, th e G en eral C o u n sel so u g h t
to litig ate th e in stan t alleg atio n s in th e p rio r p ro ceed in g ,
b u t th e R esp o n d en ts o p p o sed th e G en eral C o u n sel's m o -
tio n , th e ju d g e d en ied it, an d th e B o ard d en ied th e G en -
eral C o u n sel's sp ecial ap p eal. W e fin d th at th e ju d g e's
d en ial o f th e G en eral C o u n sel's earlier m o tio n to am en d
th e co m p lain t leav es th e G en eral C o u n sel free to litig ate
th e rejected alleg atio n s in th e in stan t p ro ceed in g . W h ere
as h ere th e R esp o n d en ts o p p o sed th e G en eral C o u n sel's
earlier m o tio n s to am en d th e u n d erly in g co n so lid ated
co m p lain t, th ey can n o t n o w claim th at it is a b reach o f
d u e p ro cess to ,h av e tw o sep arate h earin g s.9
9 W e also reject the R espondents'contention that the issuance of the
instant com plaint w ill result in undue delay and prejudice to the R e-
spondents because of the unavailability of w itnesses and possible de-
struction of docum ents. T he G eneral C ounsel's earlier m otion to
am end the consolidated com plaint in C ases 7-C A -38079,et al.,pro-
vided the R espondents w ith sufficient notice of the allegations.See
M arem outo C orp., 249 N L R B 216,217 (1980).W e also note the G en-
eral C ounsel's assertion that the R espondents have know n about the
R egionalD irector's consideration of these additionalallegations since
M arch 1998 w hen the U nions requested the R egion to review additional
discharges under a disparate treatm enttheory.A tthattim e,the R egion
requested a response to the allegations from the R espondents.T he
G eneralC ounselalso asserts that,as a resultof the R espondents'resis-
tance to producing subpoenaed docum ents and the tim e required to
obtain those docum ents through enforcem ent rem edies,the disparate
treatm entissue could notbe fully considered or fairly raised untillate
in the hearing on the underlying consolidated com plaint.
F in ally , w e also reject th e R esp o n d en ts' co n ten tio n in
th eir seco n d m o tio n to d ism iss th at 1 1 o f th e alleg ed d is-
ch arg es are b arred b y S ectio n 1 0 (b ) b ecau se th ey w ere
n o t m en tio n ed in an y ch arg e. A s d iscu ssed ab o v e, w e
fin d th at all o f th e ad d itio n al alleg ed d isch arg es in th e
co m p lain t are clo sely related to th e tim ely ch arg e alleg a-
tio n s in C ases 7 -C A -3 8 0 7 9 et al., an d are th erefd re n o t
tim e-b arred reg ard less o f w h eth er th ey w ere sp ecifically
m en tio n ed in an y ch arg e. M o reo v er, w e ag ree w ith th e
G en eral C o u n sel th at th e R esp o n d en ts h ad su fficien t n o -
tice th at th e 1 1 alleg ed d iscrim in atees w ere at issu e. In i-
tially , w e n o te th at th e R esp o n d en ts ad m it receiv in g a
c o p y o f th e a m e n d e d c h a rg e in C a se 7 -C A -4 0 7 5 9 ,
w h ich 'referred to an attach ed list o f d iscrim in atees. 19
A lth o u g h th e R esp o n d en ts assert th at n o su ch list w as
actu ally attach ed , th e G en eral C o u n sel states th at th e
R esp o n d en ts failed to n o tify th e R eg io n al O ffice th at th e
attach m en t w as n o t receiv ed . T h e G en eral C o u n sel fu r-
th er n o tes th at th e R esp o n d en ts failed to assert th is claim
in eith er th eir A u g u st 1 0 , 1 9 9 9 an sw er o r th eir A u g u st
1 1 , 1 9 9 9 am en d ed an sw er; n o r d id th ey raise th is issu e in
th eir d istrict co u rt actio n o r in th eir first m o tio n to d is-
m iss filed w ith th e B o ard o n A u g u st 1 0 , 1 9 9 9 . T h e G en -
eral C o u n sel asserts th at th e R esp o n d en ts raised th e issu e
fo r th e first tim e o n D ecem b er 1 , 1 9 9 9 , an d o n D ecem b er
9 th e R e g io n a l O ffic e se rv e d a n o th e r c o p y o f th e
am en d ed ch arg e an d attach m en t o n th e R esp o n d en t.
F in ally , th e G en eral C o u n sel n o tes th at, in th eir d istrict
co u rt p lead in g s, th e R esp o n d en ts sp ecifically referred to
th e II in d iv id u als at issu e as "in d iv id u als w h o are listed
in ch arg e n u m b ers 7 -C A -4 0 7 5 9 , 7 -C A -4 0 9 4 4 an d 7 -
C A -4 0 9 4 3 ."
In su m , w e fin d th at th e R esp o n d en ts h av e n o t d em o n -
strated th at th e G en eral C o u n sel's issu an ce o f th e in stan t
co m p lain t is u n tim ely u n d er S ectio n 1 0 (b ) o f th e A ct o r
o th erw ise b ey o n d its d iscretio n . T h erefo re, w e d en y th e
R esp o n d en ts'm o tio n s to d ism iss.
O R DER
T h e m o tio n s to d ism iss are d en ied .
IT IS F U R T H E R O R D E R E D that C ases 7-C A -40759, 7-
C A -4 0 9 4 3 , an d 7 -C A -4 0 9 4 4 are rem an d ed to th e R e-
g io n al D irecto r fo r fu rth er actio n co n sisten t w ith th is
O rder.
I The am ended charge contained in the records of the R egionalO f-
fice includes an attachm entlisting the nam es of 62 alleged discrim ina-
tees:51 alleged discrim inatees listed on the attachm entto the original
charge and the II alleged discrim inatees atissue.
NLRB-FOIA-00009215
(AA /11,Tefiukt-sUAPS
3001010
NLRB-FOIA-00009216
Page 1 of 9
78 S.C t.99
W est R ep _orter Im age (P D F )
3 5 5 U .S . 4 1 , 7 8 S .C t. 9 9 , 4 1 L .R .R .M . (B N A ) 2 0 8 9 , 9 F a ir E m p l.P ra c.C a s. (B N A ) 4 3 9 , 1
E m p l. P ra c. D ec. P 9 6 5 6 , 2 L .E d .2 d 8 0 , 3 3 L a b .C a s. P 7 1 ,0 7 7
B riefs an d O th er R elated D ocu m en ts
S u p rem e C o u rt o f th e U n ited S ta tes
J. D . C O N L E Y et al., P etition ers,
V .
P at 3: G IB S O N , G en eral C h airm an of L ocals 605 1 an d 28, etc., et al.
N o. 7.
A rg u ed O ct. 2 1 , 1 9 5 7 .
D ecid ed N o v . 1 8 ,1 .9 5 7 .
A ction for d eclaratory ju d gm en t an d for oth er relief. T h e U n ited S tates D istrict C ou rt
fo r th e S o u th ern D istrict o f T ex a s, H o u sto n D iv isio n , 1 3 8 F .S u p p . 6 0 , ren d ered
ju d g m en t d ism issin g th e co m p la in t. P la in tiffs a p p ea led . T h e U n ited S ta tes C o u rt o f
A p p eals for th e F ifth C ircu it, 229 F .2d 436, affirm ed . T h e p lain tiffs b rou gh t certiorari.
T h e S u p rem e C ou rt, M r. Ju stice B lack , h eld th at com p lain t, filed b y N egro railw ay
em p lo y ees a g a in st th eir u n io n , su fficien tly a lleg ed b rea ch o f u n io n 's sta tu to ry d u ty to
rep resen t fa irly a n d w ith o u t h o stile d iscrim in a tio n a ll o f th e em p lo y ees in th e u n io n .
R eversed an d rem an d ed to D istrict C ou rt w ith d irection .
W est H ead n otes
[1]
K eyC ite C itin g R eferen ces for th is H ead n ote
c--231H . L ab or an d E m p loym en t
c-231H X II L ab or R elation s
31H X II(D ) B argain in g R ep resen tatives
;-231H k 1207 D u ty to' A ct Im p artially an d W ith ou t D iscrim in ation ; F air
R ep resen tation
r...231H k 1209 D iscrim in ation
-v-231H k 120911) k . In gen era l. M ost C ited C ases
(F orm erly 232A k 219 L ab or R elation s)
A n exclu sive b argain in g agen t u n d er th e R ailw ay L ab or A ct is ob ligated to rep resen t
all em p loyees in th e b argain in g u n it fa irly an d w ith o u t d iscrim in ation b ecau se of race,
a n d th e co u rts h a v e p o w er to p ro tect em p lo y ees a g a in st su ch in v id io u s d iscrim in a tio n .
R a ilw a y L a b o r A ct, s 1 et seq ., a s a m en d ed 4 5 U .S .C .A . s1 5 1 et seq .
[2] 'L .!) K eyC ite C itin g R eferen ces for th is H ead n ote
(.:-170B F ed eral C ou rts
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.aspx?m t=L a.borA ndE m ploym ent& utid= 1& ... 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009217
Page 2 of 9
78 S.C t.99
...--170B V II Suprem e C ourt
f.-170B V II(B ) R eview of D ecision s of C ou rts of A p p eals
c-1706k 455 D ecision s R eview ab le an d G rou n d s for Issu an ce
.o-170B k 459 k . L ab or relation s an d stan d ard s; em p loyers' liab ility. M ost C ited
C ases
(F orm erly 106k 383(1))
W h ere case raised an im p ortan t q u estion con cern in g p rotection of em p loyee righ ts
u n d er R ailw ay L ab or A ct, th e S u p rem e C ou rt gran ted certiorari. R ailw ay L ab or A ct, 1
et seq . a s a m en d ed 4 5 U .S .C .A . 1 5 1 et seq .
[.3
v-231H L ab or an d E m p loym en t
-,:7-231H X II L abor R elations
.f.---231H X II(H ) A lternative D ispute R esolution
., 231H X II(H )2 M atters S u b ject to A rb itration
i.:-231H k 1525 P articu lar D isp u tes
t-231H k 1535 k . D iscrim in ation . M ost C ited C ases
(F orm erly 232A k 416.6, 232A k 416 L ab or R elation s)
S u it b y N egro railw ay em p loyees again st th eir b argain in g agen t to en force th eir
statu tory righ t n ot to b e u n fairly d iscrim in ated again st b y agen t in b argain in g in volved
n o d isp u te b etw een em p loyees an d em p loyer an d th e collective b argain in g agreem en t
w ou ld b e at m ost on ly in cid en tally in volved , an d con seq u en tly p rovision in R ailw ay
L ab or A ct, givin g ju risd iction to railroad ad ju stm en t b oard in d isp u te b etw een
em p loyees an d carrier grow in g ou t of in terp retation of ap p lication of agreem en t d id n ot
d ep rive th e cou rt of ju risd iction . R ailw ay L ab or A ct, 3, su b d . 1(i) as am en d ed 45
U .S.C .A
1 5 3 , su b d . 1 (i).
[4] d K eyC ite C itin g R eferen ces for th is H ead n ote
1H L ab or an d E m p loym en t
(g-231H X II L abor R elations
v-231H X II(D ) B argain in g R ep resen tatives
.;231H k 1207 D u ty to A ct Im p artially an d W ith ou t D iscrim in ation ; F air
R ep resen tation
.231H k 1219 A ction s for B reach of D u ty
;..-231H k 1219(5) k . P arties; stan d in g. M ost C ited C ases
In action b y N egro railw ay em p loyees again st th eir railw ay u n ion to en force th eir
statu tory righ t n ot to b e u n law fu lly d iscrim in ated again st b y th e u n ion in b argain in g,
th e railw ay w as n ot an in d isp en sab le p arty. R ailw ay L ab or A ct, 1 et seq . as am en d ed
4 5 U .S .C .A . 1 5 1 et seq .
[5] L K eyC ite C itin g R eferen ces for th is H ead n ote
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.aspx?m t=LaborA ndEm ploym ent& utid=1& ..
.6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009218
78 S.C t.99
Page 3 of 9
70A F ed eral C ivil P roced u re
(..,170A X I D ism issal
--,170A X I(B ) In volu n tary D ism issal
70A X _IIB )3 P lead in g, D efects In , in G en eral "
(..-170A k 1773 k . C lear or certain n atu re of in su fficien cy.

M ost C ited C ases
A com p lain t sh ou ld n ot b e d ism issed for failu re to state a claim u n less it ap p ears
b eyon d d ou b t th at th e p lain tiff can p rove n o set of facts in su p p ort of h is claim w h ich
w ou ld en title h im to relief. F ed .R u les C iv.P roc. ru le 12, 28 ...C .A .
[6] i2 K eyC ite C itin g R eferen ces for th is H ead n ote
c-231H L ab or an d E m p loym en t
t.,..231H X II L ab or R elation s
.v.231H X II(D ) B argain in g R ep resen tatives
(...-.231H k 1207 D u ty to A ct Im p artially an d W ith ou t D iscrim in ation ; F air
R ep resen tation
(..-2311-1k 1219
A ction s for B reach of D u ty
f.,-,..231H k 1219(8) k . P lead in g. M ost C ited C ases
C om p lain t, filed b y N egro railw ay em p loyees again st th eir u n ion , su fficien tly alleged
b reach of u n ion 's statu tory d u ty to rep resen t fairly an d w ith ou t h ostile d iscrim in ation
all of th e em p loyees in th e u n ion , an d ad eq u ately set forth th e claim an d gave th e
u n ion fair n otice of its b asis. F ed .R u les C iv.P roc. ru le 8(.a) (2), 28 U .S .C .A .
[7 ] 1
A -2311:1 L abor and E m ploym ent
r.231H X II L ab or R elation s
c-231H X II(D ) B argain in g R ep resen tatives
231H k 1207 D u ty to A ct Im p artially an d W ith ou t D iscrim in ation ; F air
R ep resen tation
c-231H k 1209 D iscrim in ation
(.:-23111k 1209(1) k . In gen eral. M ost C ited C ases
'
U n d er R ailw ay L ab or A ct, b argain in g agen t can n ot d iscrim in ate am on g th ose w h om
it rep resen ts eith er in n egotiatin g th e collective agreem en t or in m ak in g d ay to d ay
ad ju stm en ts in th e agreem en t an d oth er w ork in g ru les an d in resolvin g n ew p rob lem s
n ot covered b y existin g agreem en t an d in p rotectin g em p loyee righ ts alread y secu red
b y agreem en t. R ailw ay L ab or A ct; 1 et seq . as am en d ed 45 U .S .C .A . 151 et seq .
[8]
RI'K ey_C ite C itin g R eferen ces for th is H ead n ote
c-231H L ab or an d E m p loym en t
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.aspx?m t=L aborA ndE m ploym ent& utid=1& ..
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009219
78 S .C t.99
P age 4 of9
:--2 3 1 H X II L a b o r R e la tio n s
(.2 3 1 H X IIID ) B a rg a in in g R e p re se n ta tive s
(2 3 1 H k1 2 0 7 D u ty to A ct Im p a rtia lly a n d W ith o u t D iscrim in a tio n ; F a ir
R epresentation
c-2 3 1 H k1 2 0 9 D iscrim in a tio n
c7 = 2 3 1 H k1 2 0 9 (1 ) k. In g e n e ra l. M o st C ite d C a se s
(F o rm e rly 2 3 2 A k2 1 9 L a b o r R e la tio n s)
T h e fa ct th a t u n d e r th e R a ilw a y L a b o r A ct a g g rie ve d ra ilw a y e m p lo ye e s ca n file th e ir
o w n g rie va n ce s w ith ra ilro a d a d ju stm e n t b o a rd o r ca n su e e m p lo ye r fo r b re a ch o f
co n tra ct fu rn ish e s n o sa n ctio n fo r u n io n 's a lle g e d d iscrim in a tio n in re fu sin g to re p re se n t
N e g ro m e m b e rs o f u n io n . R a ilw a y L a b o r A ct, 1 e t se q . a s a m e n d e d 4 5 U .S .C .A . 1 5 1
et seq.
[9]
K e yC ite C itin g R e fe re n ce s fo r th is H e a d n o te
c----231H Labor and E m ploym ent
(.2 3 1 H X II L a b o r R e la tio n s
c-2311-1.X II_(D ). B argaining R epresentatives
(,--2 3 1 H k1 2 0 7 D u ty to A ct Im p a rtia lly a n d W ith o u t D iscrim in a tio n ; F a ir
R e p re se n ta tio n
o.,2 3 1 H k1 2 0 9 D iscrim in a tio n
c-2 3 1 H k1 2 0 9 (1 ) k. In g e n e ra l. M o st C ite d C a se s
(F o rm e rly 2 3 2 A k2 1 9 L a b o r R e la tio n s)
O n ce ra ilw a y u n io n u n d e rta ke s to b a rg a in o r p re se n t g rie va n ce s fo r so m e o f th e
e m p lo ye e s it re p re se n ts it ca n n o t re fu se to ta ke sim ila r a ctio n in g o o d fa ith fo r o th e r
e m p lo ye e s ju st b e ca u se th e y a re N e g ro e s. R a ilw a y L a b o r A ct, 1 e t se q . a s. a m e n d e d
4 5 U .S .C .A . 1 5 1 e t se q .
[10]
K e yC ite C itin g R e fe re n ce s fo r th is H e a d n o te
c--1 7
0 A F e d e ra l C ivil P ro ce d u re
c-1 7 0 A V II P le a d in g s a n d M o tio n s
0 A V II(A ). P le a d in g s in G e n e ra l
<,.,,1 7 0 A k6 2 3 k. N a tu re a n d p u rp o se . M o st C ite d C a se s
U n d e r th e fe d e ra l ru le s, th e p u rp o se o f p le a d in g is to fa cilita te a p ro p e r d e cisio n o n
th e m e rits. F e d .R u le s C iv.P ro c. ru le s 8 (a )(2 )(f), 1 2 (c,_ e , f)., 1 5 , 1 6 , 2 6 -3 7 ., 5 6 , 2 8
U .S .C .A .
**1 0 0 *4 2 M r. Jo se p h C . W a d d y, W a sh in g to n , D .C ., fo r p e titio n e rs.
M r. E d w a rd J. H icke y, Jr., W a sh in g to n , D .C ., fo r re sp o n d e n t.
M r. Ju stice B L A C K d e live re d th e o p in io n o f th e C o u rt.
[1 ]1 Z O n ce a g a in N e g ro e m p lo ye e s a re h e re u n d e r th e R a ilw a y L a b o r A ct FN .I. asking
th a t th e ir co lle ctive b a rg a in in g a g e n t b e co m p e lle d to re p re se n t th e m fa irly. In a se rie s
https://w eb2.w est1aw .com /resu1t/docum enttext.aspx?m t=LaborA ndE m pl0ym ent& utid=1& ..
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009220
Page 5 of 9
78 S.C t..99
of cases b egin n in g w ith S teele v. L ou isville & N ash ville R . C o., 323 U .S . 192, 65
S .C t. 226,_89 L .E d . 173, th is C ou rt h as em p h atically an d rep eated ly ru led th at an
exclu sive b argain in g agen t u n d er th e R ailw ay L ab or A ct is ob ligated to rep resen t all
em p loyees in th e b argain in g u n it fairly an d w ith ou t d iscrim in ation b ecau se of race an d
h as h eld th at th e cou rts h ave p ow er to p rotect em p loyees again st su ch in vid iou s
discrim ination .F 2
FN 1. 4 4 S ta t. 5 7 7 , a s a m en d ed , 4 5 U .S .C . s 1 5 1 et seq ., 4 5 U .S .C .A . s 1 5 1
et seq ,
FN 2. T u n stall v. B roth erh ood of L ocom otive F irem en & E n gin em en , 323 U .S .
235, 89 L .E d . 187; G rah am

B roth erh ood of L ocom otive
210,._65
2 3 2 , 7 0 S .C t. 1 4 ,9 4 L .E d . 22; B rotherhood
Firem en & E n gin em en , 33
of R ailroad T rain m en v. H ow ard , 343 U S . 768,

72 S .C t. 1022, 96 L .E d .
1283; C f. W allace C orp . v..N a tion at L ab or R elation s B oard , 323 U .S . 248, 65
S .C t. 238, 89 L .E d . 216; S yres v. O il W ork ers In tern ation al U n ion ,

35Q 0 $
...
8 9 2 , 7 6 S .C t. 1 5 2 , 1 0 0 L .E d . 7 8 5 .
T h is class su it w as b rou gh t In a F ed eral D istrict C ou rt in T exas b y certain N egro
m em b ers of th e B roth erh ood of R ailw ay an d S team sh ip C lerk s, p etition ers h ere, on
b eh alf of th em selves an d oth er N egro em p loyees sim ilarly situ ated again st th e
B roth erh ood , its L ocal U n ion N o. 28 an d certain officers of b oth . In su m m ary, th e
com p lain t *4 3 m ad e th e follow iiig allegation s relevan t to ou r d ecision : P etition ers w ere
em p loyees of th e T exas an d N ew O rlean s R ailroad at its H ou ston F reigh t H ou se. L ocal
28 of th e B roth erh ood w as th e d esign ated b argain in g agen ts u n d er th e R ailw ay L ab or
A ct for th e b argain in g u n it to w h ich p etition ers b elon ged . A con tract existed b etw een
th e U n ion an d th e R ailroad w h ich gave th e em p loyees in th e b argain in g u n it certain
p rotection from d isch arge an d loss of sen iority. In M ay 1954, th e R ailroad p u rp orted to
ab olish 45 job s h eld b y p etition ers or oth er N egroes all of w h om w ere eith er d isch arged
or d em oted . In tru th th e 45 job s w ere n ot ab olish ed at all b u t in stead filled b y w h ites
as th e N egroes w ere ou sted , excep t for a few in stan ces w h ere N egroes w ere reh ired to
fill th eir old job s b u t w ith loss of sen iority. D esp ite rep eated p leas b y p etition ers, th e
U n ion , actin g accord in g to p lan , d id n oth in g to p rotect th em again st th ese
d iscrim in atory d isch arges an d refu sed to give th em p rotection com p arab le to th at given
w h ite em p loyees. T h e com p lain t th en w en t on to allege th at th e U n ion h ad failed in
gen eral to rep resen t N egro em p loyees **1 0 / eq u ally an d in good faith . It ch arged
th at su ch d iscrim in ation con stitu ted a violation of p etition ers' righ t u n d er th e R ailw ay
L ab or A ct to fair rep resen tation from th eir b argain in g agen t. A n d it con clu d ed b y ask in g
for relief in th e n atu re of d eclaratory ju d gm en t, in ju n ction an d d am ages.
[2] if T h e resp on d en ts ap p eared an d m oved to d ism iss th e com p lain t on several
grou n d s: (1) th e N ation al R ailroad A d ju stm en t B oard h ad exclu sive ju risd iction over
th e con troversy; (2) th e T exas an d N ew O rlean s R ailroad , w h ich h ad n ot b een join ed ,
w as an in d isp en sab le p arty d efen d an t; an d (3) th e com p lain t failed to state a claim
u p on w h ich relief cou ld b e given . T h e D istrict C ou rt gran ted th e m otion to d ism iss
h old in g th at C on gress h ad given th e A d ju stm en t B oard exclu sive ju risd iction over
*4 4
th e con troversy. T h e C ou rt of A p p eals for th e F ifth C ircu it, ap p aren tly relyin g on th e
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /resu1t/docum enttext.aspx?m t=L aborA ndE m pl0ym ent& utid=1& ..
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009221
Page 6 of 9
78 S.C t.99
sam e g ro u n d ,affirm ed . 229 F .2d 436. S in ce th e case raised an im p o rtan t q u estio n
co n cern in g th e p ro tectio n o f em p lo yee rig h ts u n d er th e R ailw ay L ab o r A ct w e g ran ted
ce rtio rari. 3 52 U .S . 81 8,7 7 S .C t. 37 ,1 L .E d .2 d 44.
[3]
W e h o ld th at it w as erro r fo r th e co u rts b elo w to d ism iss th e co m p lain t fo r
"
lack o f ju risd ictio n . T h ey to o k th e p o sitio n th at s 3 F irst (i) o f th e R ailw ay L ab o r A ct
co n ferred exclu sive ju risd ictio n o n th e A d ju stm en t B o ard b ecau se th e case,in th eir
view ,in vo lved th e in terp retatio n an d ap p licatio n o f th e co llective b arg ain in g
ag reem en t. B u t s 3 F irst (i) b y its o w n term s ap p lies o n ly to 'd isp u tes b etw een an
em p lo yee o r g ro u p o f em p lo yees an d a carrier o r carriers.' F1'3 T h is case in vo lves n o
d isp u te b etw een em p lo yee an d em p lo yer b u t to th e co n trary is a su it b y em p lo yees
ag ain st th e b arg ain in g ag en t to en fo rce th eir statu to ry rig h t n o t to b e u n fairly
d iscrim in ated ag ain st b y it in b arg ain in g . FN4 T h e A d ju stm en t B o ard h as n o *4 5 po w er
u n d er s 3 F irst (i) o r an y o th er p ro visio n o f th e A ct to p ro tect th em fro m su ch
d iscrim in atio n . F u rth erm o re,th e co n tract b etw een th e B ro th erh o o d an d th e R ailro ad
w ill b e,at m o st,o n ly in cid en tally in vo lved in reso lvin g th is co n tro versy b etw een
p etitio n ers an d th eir b arg ain in g ag en t.
F N 3. In fu ll,s 3 F irst (i) read s:'T h e d isp u tes b etw een an em p lo yee o r g ro u p
o f em p lo yees an d a carrier o r carriers g ro w in g o u t o f g rievan ces o r o u t o f
th e in terp retatio n o r ap p licatio n o f ag reem en ts co n cern in g rates o f p ay,
ru les,o r w o rkin g co n d itio n s,in clu d in g cases p en d in g an d u n ad ju sted o n th e '
d ate o f ap p ro val o f th is .A ct (Ju n e 21,1934),sh all b e h an d led in th e u su al

.
m an n er u p to an d in clu d in g th e ch ief o p eratin g o fficer o f th e carrier
d esig n ated to h an d le su ch d isp u tes; b u t,failin g to reach an ad ju stm en t in
th is m an n er,th e d isp u tes m ay b e referred b y p etitio n o f th e p arties o r b y
eith er p arty to th e ap p ro p riate d ivisio n o f th e A d ju stm en t B o ard w ith a fu ll
statem en t o f th e facts an d all su p p o rtin g d ata b earin g u p o n th e d isp u tes.' 48
S ta t. 119 1,4 5 U ..S .C . s 1 53 F irst (i),45 U .S .C .A . s 15 3,s u b d . 1(i).
' F N 4. F o r th is reaso n th e d ecisio n in S lo cu m v. D elaw are,L . & W .R . C o .,.339
U .S . 239,70 S .C t. 577,94 L .E d . 795,is n o t ap p licab le h ere. T h e co u rts
b elo w also relied o n H ayes v. U n io n P acific R . C o .,9 C ir.,184 F .2d 337,
certio rari d en ied .3 4 0 U .S . 9 4 2 ,7 1 S .C t. 5 0 6 ,9 5 L .E d . 6 8 0 ,b u t fo r th e
reaso n s set fo rth in th e text w e b elieve th at case w as d ecid ed in co rrectly..
A lth o u g h th e D istrict C o u rt d id n o t p ass o n th e o th er reaso n s ad van ced fo r d ism issal
o f th e co m p lain t w e th in k it tim ely an d p ro p er fo r u s to co n sid er th em h ere. T h ey h ave
b een b riefed an d arg u ed b y b o th p arties an d th e resp o n d en ts u rg e th at th e d ecisio n
b elo w b e u p h eld ,if n ecessary,o n th ese o th er g ro u n d s.
[4] c.f: A s in th e co u rts b elo w ,resp o n d en ts co n ten d th at th e T exas an d N ew O rlean s
R ailro ad C o m p an y is an in d isp en sab le p arty w h ich th e p etitio n ers h ave failed to jo in as
6 d efen d an t. O n th e b asis o f th e alleg atio n s m ad e in th e co m p lain t an d th e relief
d em an d ed b y p etitio n ers w e b elieve th at co n ten tio n is u n ju stifiab le. W e can n o t see
ho w the **1 0 2 R ailro ad 's rig h ts o r in terests w ill b e affected b y th is actio n to en fo rce '
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.aspx?m t=L aborA ndE m ploym ent& utid=1& ..
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009222
78 S.C t.99
Page 7 of 9
th e d u ty o f th e b arg ain in g rep resen tative to rep resen t p etitio n ers fairly. T h is is n o t a
su it,d irectly o r in d irectly,ag ain st th e R ailro ad . N o relief is asked fro m it an d th ere is
n o p ro sp ect th at an y w ill o r can b e g ran ted w h ich w ill b in d it. If an issu e d o es d evelo p
w h ich n ecessitates jo in in g th e R ailro ad eith er it o r th e resp o n d en ts w ill th en h ave an
ad eq u ate o p p o rtu n ity to req u est jo in d er.
[5]
[6] :-...4[7] 2.1 T u rn in g to resp o n d en ts'fin al g ro u n d ,W e h o ld th at u n d er th e
g en eral p rin cip les laid d o w n in th e S teele,G rah am ,an d H o w ard cases th e co m p lain t
ad eq u ately set fo rth a claim u p o n w h ich relief co u ld b e g ran ted . in ap p raisin g th e
su fficien cy o f th e co m p lain t w e fo llo w ,o f co u rse,th e accep ted ru le th at a co m p lain t
sh o u ld n o t b e d ism issed fo r failu re to state a claim u n less it ap p ears b eyo n d d o u b t th at
th e p lain tiff can p ro ve n o set o f facts *4 6 in su p p o rt o f h is claim w h ich w o u ld en title
h im to relief.FN5 H ere,th e co m p lain t alleg ed ,in p art,th at p etitio n ers w ere d isch arg ed
w ro n g fu lly b y th e R ailro ad an d th at th e U n io n ,actin g acco rd in g to p lan ,refu sed to
p ro tect th eir jo b s as it d id th o se o f w h ite em p lo yees o r to h elp th em w ith th eir
g rievan ces all b ecau se th ey w ere N eg ro es. If th ese alleg atio n s are p ro ven th ere h as
b een a m an ifest b reach o f th e U n io n 's statu to ry d u ty to rep resen t fairly an d w ith o u t
h o stile d iscrim in atio n all o f th e em p lo yees in th e b arg ain in g u n it. T h is C o u rt sq u arely
h eld in S teele an d su b seq u en t cases th at d iscrim in atio n in rep resen tatio n b ecau se o f
race is p ro h ib ited b y th e R ailw ay L ab o r A ct. T h e b arg ain in g rep resen tative's d u ty n o t to
d raw 'irrelevan t an d in vid io u s'' 6 d istin ctio n s am o n g th o se it rep resen ts d o es n o t co m e
to an ab ru p t en d ,as th e resp o n d en ts seem to co n ten d ,w ith th e m akin g o f an
ag reem en t b etw een u n io n an d em p lo yer. C o llective b arg ain in g is a co n tin u in g p ro cess.
A m o n g o th er th in g s,it in vo lves d ay-to -d ay ad ju stm en ts in th e co n tract an d o th er
w o rkin g ru les,reso lu tio n o f n ew p ro b lem s n o t co vered b y existin g ag reem en ts,an d th e
p ro tectio n o f em p lo yee rig h ts alread y secu red b y co n tract. T h e b arg ain in g
rep resen tative can n o m o re u n fairly d iscrim in ate in carryin g o u t th ese fu n ctio n s th an it
can in n eg o tiatin g a co llective ag reem en t.

-IN7 A co n tract m ay b e fair an d im p artial o n
its face yet ad m in istered in su ch a w ay,w ith th e active o r tacit co n sen t o f th e u n io n ,as
to b e flag ran tly d iscrim in ato ry ag ain st so m e m em b ers o f th e b arg ain in g u n it.
S ee,e.g .,L eim er v. S tate M u tu al L ife A ssu r. C o ..,8 C ir.,108 F .2d 302;.
D io g u ard i v. D u rn in g ,2 C ir.,139 F .2d 774; C o n tin en tal C o llieries v. S h o b er,
3 C ir.,130 F .2d 6 31.
F N 6. S teele v. L o u isville & N ash ville R . C o .,323 U .S . 192,203,65 S .C t. 226,
232.
F N 7. S ee D illard v. C h esap eake & O h io R . C o .,4 C ir.,199 F .2d 948;. H u g h es
T o o l C o . v. N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s B o ard ,5 C ir.,147 F .2d 69,74,158
A .L .R . 1165.
[a]Z[9]
T h e resp o n d en ts p o in t to th e fact th at u n d er th e R ailw ay L ab o r A ct
*4 7
ag g rieved em p lo yees can file th eir o w n g rievan ces w ith th e A d ju stm en t B o ard o r su e
th e em p lo yer fo r b reach o f co n tract. G ran tin g th is,it still fu rn ish es n o san ctio n fo r th e
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.asPx?m t=L aborA ndE m ploym ent& utid=1& ..
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009223
Page 8 of 9
78 S.C t.99
U n io n 's alleg ed d iscrim in atio n in refu sin g to rep resen t p etitio n ers. T h e R ailw ay L ab o r
A ct,in an attem p t to aid co llective actio n b y em p lo yees,co n ferred g reat p o w er an d
p ro tectio n o n th e b arg ain in g ag en t ch o sen b y a m ajo rity o f th em . A s in d ivid u als o r
sm all g ro u p s th e em p lo yees can n o t b eg in to p o ssess th e b arg ain in g p o w er o f th eir
rep resen tative in n eg o tiatin g w ith th e em p lo yer o r in p resen tin g th eir g rievan ces to
h im . N o r m ay a m in o rity ch o o se an o th er ag en t to b arg ain in th eir b eh alf. W e n eed n o t
p ass o n th e U n io n 's claim th at it w as n o t o b lig ed to h an d le an y g rievan ces at all
b ecau se w e are clear th at o n ce to u n d erto o k to b arg ain o r p resen t g rievan ces fo r so m e
o f th e em p lo yees it rep resen ted it co u ld n o t refu se to take sim ilar actio n in g o o d
* *1 0 3 faith fo r o th er em p lo yees ju st b ecau se th ey w ere N eg ro es.
[10] 1...4 T h e resp o n d en ts also arg u e th at th e co m p lain t failed to set fo rth sp ecific
facts to su p p o rt its g en eral alleg atro n s o f d iscrim in atio n an d th at its d ism issal is
th erefo re p ro p er. T h e d ecisive an sw er to th is is th at th e F ed eral R u les o f C ivil
P ro ced u re d o n o t req u ire a claim an t to set o u t in d etail th e facts u p o n w h ich h e b ases
h is claim . T o th e co n trary,all th e R u les req u ire is 'a sh o rt an d p lain statem en t o f th e
claim 'F-N 5 th at w ill g ive th e d efen d an t fair n o tice o f w h at th e p lain tiff's claim is an d th e
g ro u n d s u p o n w h ich it rests. T h e illu strative fo rm s ap p en d ed to th e R u les p lain ly
d em o n strate th is. S u ch sim p lified 'n o tice p lead in g 'is m ad e p o ssib le b y th e lib eral
o p p o rtu n ity fo r d isco very an d th e o th er p retrial p ro ced u res *4 8 estab lish ed b y th e
R u les to d isclo se m o re p recisely th e b asis o f b o th claim an d d efen se an d to d efin e m o re
F o llo w in g th e sim p le g u id e o f R u le 8(f) th at
n arro w ly th e d isp u ted facts an d issu es.
d
o
su b stan tial ju stice,' w e h ave n o d o u b t th at
t
o
'all p lead in g s sh all b e so co n stru ed as
p etitio n ers'co m p lain t ad eq u ately set fo rth a claim an d g ave th e resp o n d en ts fair n o tice
o f its b asis. T h e F ed eral R u les reject th e ap p ro ach th at p lead in g is a g am e o f skill in
w h ich o n e m isstep b y co u n sel m ay b e d ecisive to th e o u tco m e an d accep t th e p rin cip le
th at th e p u rp o se o f p lead in g is to facilitate a p ro p er d ecisio n o n th e m erits. C f. _M aty
G rasselli C h em ical C o .,303 U .S . 197,58 S .C t. 507,82 L .E d . 745.
,F
"
F N 8_. R u le 8(a)(2),28 U .S .C .A .
F N 9. S ee,e.g .,R u le..12(e) (m o tio n fo r a m o re d efin ite statem en t); R u le 12
(f) (m o tio n to strike p o rtio n s o f th e p lead in g ); R u le 12(c) (m o tio n fo r
ju d g m en t o n th e p lead in g s); R u le 16 (p re-trial p ro ced u re an d fo rm u latio n o f
issu e); R u les 26-37 (d ep o sitio n s an d d isco very); .R u le _ 56 (m o tio n fo r
su m m ary ju d g m en t): R u l.e 15 (rig h t to am en d ).
T h e ju d g m en t is reversed an d th e cau se is rem an d ed to th e D istrict C o u rt fo r fu rth er
p ro ceed in g s n o t in co n sisten t w ith th is o p in io n .
It is so o rd ered .
R eversed an d rem an d ed w ith d irectio n .
U .S . 1957.
C O N L E Y v. G IB S O N
355 U .S . 41,78 S .C t. 99,41 L .R .R .M . (B N A ) 2089,9 F air E m p l.P rac.C as. (B N A ) 439,1
https://w eb2.w est1aw .com /resu1t/docum enttext.aspx?m t=LaborA ndEm pl0ym ent8cutid=1& ..
.6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009224
A ggsaiw zcipm osidR 6
1.1110/S.10.
195/1= p9n7puoutiC oidtuH puvioqul.nui,xdspixanuoulnooppinsaytuon
AC1 /M
0 f1
III
In T w o m b ly, su p ra , a t 5 5 3 -5 5 4 , 12 7 S .C t..19 5 5 , th e C o u rt fo u n d it n ecessa ry first to
d iscu ss th e an titru st p rin cip les im p licated b y th e com p lain t. H ere' too w e b egin b y
ta k in g n o te o f th e elem en ts a p la in tiff m u st p lea d to sta te a cla im o f u n co n stitu tio n a l
d iscrim in a tio n a g a in st o fficia ls en titled to a ssert th e d efen se o f q u a lified im m u n ity .
[7] VI, In B iv en s-p ro ceed in g o n th e th eo ry th a t a rig h t su g g ests a rem ed y -th is C o u rt
" reco g n ized fo r th e first tim e a n im p lied p riv a te a ctio n fo r d a m a g es a g a in st fed era l
o fficers a lleg ed to h a v e v io la ted a citizen 's co n stitu tio n a l rig h ts."

*1 9 4 8 C o rre ctio n a l
S e rvice s C o rp . v. M a le sko , 5 3 4 U .S . 6 1, 6 6 , 12 2 S .C t. 5 15 , 15 1 L .E d .2 d 4 5 6 (2 0 0 1).
B eca u se im p lied ca u ses o f a ctio n a re d isfa v o red , th e C o u rt h a s b een relu cta n tto
exten d B ive n s liab ility " to an y n ew con text or n ew ca teg o ry o f d efen d a n ts." 5 3 4 U .S .,
a t 6 8 , 12 2 S .C t. 5 15 . S ee a lso W ilkie , 5 5 1 U .S ., a t 5 4 9 -5 5 0 , 12 7 S .C t. 2 5 8 8 . T h a t
relu cta n ce m ig h t w ell h a v e d isp o sed o f resp o n d en t's F irst A m en d m en t cla im o f relig io u s
d iscrim in ation . F or w h ile w e h ave allow ed a B ive n s a ctio n to red ress a v io la tio n o f th e
eq u a l p ro tectio n co m p o n en t o f th e D u e P ro cess C la u se o f th e F ifth A m en d m en t, see
D a vis v. P a ssm a n , 4 4 2 U .S . 2 2 8 , 9 9 S .C t. 2 2 6 4 , 6 0 L .E d .2 d 8 4 6 (19 7 9 ), w e h a v e n o t
fo u n d a n im p lied d a m a g es rem ed y u n d er th e F ree E x ercise C la u se. In d eed , w e h a v e
d eclin ed to exten d 8 ive n s to a claim sou n d in g in th e F irst A m en d m en t.

B u sh v. L u ca s,
4 6 2 U .S . 3 6 7 , 10 3 S .C t. 2 4 0 4 , 7 6 L .E d .2 d 6 4 8 (19 8 3 ). P etitio n ers d o n o t p ress th is
a rg u m en t, h o w ev er, so w e a ssu m e, w ith o u t d ecid in g , th a t resp o n d en t's F irst
A m en d m en t claim is action ab le u n d er B ive n s.
[8] (Z ; In th e lim ited settin gs w h ere B ivens d o es a p p ly , th e im p lied ca u se o f a ctio n is
th e " fed era l a n a lo g to su its b ro u g h t a g a in st sta te o fficia ls u n d er R ev . S ta t. 19 7 9 , 4 2
U .S .C . _1983." H a rtm a n , 5 4 7 U .S ., a t 2 5 4 ,_ _ n . 2 , 12 6 S .C t. 16 9 5 . C f. W ilso n v. L a yn e ,
5 2 6 U .S . 6 0 3 , 6 0 9 , 119 S .C t. 16 9 2 , 14 3 L .E d .2 d 8 18 (19 9 9 ). B a sed o n th e ru les o u r
p reced en ts esta b lish , resp o n d en t co rrectly co n ced es th a t G o v ern m en t o fficia ls m a y n o t
b e h eld lia b le fo r th e u n co n stitu tio n a l co n d u ct o f th eir su b o rd in a tes u n d er a th eo ry o f
re sp o n d e a t su p e rio r. Iq b a l b rief 4 6 (" [I]t is u n d isp u ted th a t su p erv iso ry & y e n s liability
ca n n o t b e esta b lish ed so lely o n a th eo ry o f re sp o n d e a t su p e rio r "). S ee M o n e ll v. N e w
Y o rk C ity D e p t. o f S o cia l S e rvs., 4 3 6 U .S . 6 5 8 , 6 9 1, 9 8 S .C t. 2 0 18 , 5 6 L .E d .2 d 6 11
(1978) (fin d in g n o vicariou s liab ility for a m u n icip al " p erson " u n d er 42 U .S .C .- 1983);
s)Y8g es% sn A 9 /5 V IR M -d e rtn sr0 1121f9 A 9 , 3 L .E d . 329 (.1812 ) (a fed eral official's
liab ility " w ill on ly resu lt from h is ow n n eglect in n ot p rop erly su p erin ten d in ggye .-7.--w 6 -
d isch arge" of h is su b ord in ates' d u ties); R o b e rtso n v. S ich e l, 12 7 U .S . 5 0 7 ,5 15 -5 1
S.C t.1286,3 L .E d.203 (1888) ("A public offi& eistottuladjathrvg/M R F iV iptA tithW arls@ P Itifit110P v
m isfea sa n ces o r p o sitio n w ro n g s, o r fo r th e n o n fea sa n ces, o r n eg lig en ces, o r o m issio n s
of d u ty, of th e su b agen ts or servan ts or oth er p erson s p k gattilya@ IN itolA ild ioltil'p in IW A V IO A
h im , in th e d isch arge of h is official d u ties" ). B ecau se vicariou s liab ility is in ap p licab le to
9 83 su its, a P la in tiff m u st p lea d th a t ea ch G o v ern m eirlb lifilejd a d o a N g
B ive n s an d 1 .
d efen d an t, th rO u gl1S glofgial3sn seyviaq irtgiN id u alA zq p (p p liip arip p ialtivi)ttigsgartgh ttgA rt.
(L S6T
'O ) 1IV ellIIN eff1lieC E 4galr1tt9IN R O W -1& grW E IsU R b itItk 3llA k iq 9.9iiii O It L S 6T
con stitu tion al p rovision at issu e. W h ere th e claim is in vid iou s d iscrim in ation in
con traven tion of th e F irst an d F ifth A i.fiR ek A tiM ,)N R IK IN S A P P A 11411cIN K ttilitetIk taP 9
p lain tiff m u st p lead an d p rove th at th e d efen d an t acted w ith d iscrim in atory p u rp ose.
C h u rch o f L u ku m i B ab alu A ye , In c. v. H ia le a h ,. 5 0 8 U .S . 5 2 0 , 5 4 0 -5 4 1, 1 .13 s.a. 2217,
W e , '044:9
124 L . E d .2d 472 (1993) ( V ialk in k efd ieglit)1; se d p a ru ttw D b r4 E 4 2 6
61iR IA :A db2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.aspx?ss=C N T & m t=L aborA ndE m ploym ent...666W 294 1
NLRB-FOIA-00009225
ii9 w o i4 iT t.p p rryluaubcoldw g puw ocigl.m ii,xdsi.ioloojm a!A aidpinsayam o.m upsam .rogne25(0
4itibsftb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.aspx?ss=C N T & m t=L aborA ndE m ploym ent..
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009226
Page 3 of 6
129 S.C t.1937
p lead s facts th at are "m erely co n sisten t w ith " a d efen d an t's liab ility, it "sto p s sh o rt
o f th e lin e b etw een p o ssib ility an d p lau sib ility o f 'en titlem en t to relief.'"
Id ., at 557,
.127 S .C t. 1955 (b rackets o m itted ).
T w o w o rkin g p rin cip les u n d erlie o u r d ecisio n in T w o m b ly. F irst, th e ten et th at a co u rt
m u st accep t as tru e all o f th e alleg atio n s co n tain ed in a co m p lain t is in ap p licab le to
leg al co n clu sio n s. T h read b are recitals o f th e elem en ts o f a cau se o f actio n , su p p o rted
b y m ere co n clu so ry statem en ts, d o n o t su ffice. Id ., at 555, 127 S .C t. 1955 (A lth o u g h
fo r th e p u rp o ses o f a m o tio n to d ism iss w e m u st take all o f th e factu al alleg atio n s in
th e co m p lain t as tru e, w e *1 9 5 0 "are n o t b o u n d to accep t as tru e a leg al co n clu sio n
co u ch ed as a factu al alleg atio n " (in tern al q u o tatio n m arks o m itted )). R u le 8 m arks a
n o tab le an d g en ero u s d ep artu re fro m th e h yp er-tech n ical, co d e-p lead in g reg im e o f a
p rio r era, b u t it d o es n o t u n lo ck th e d o o rs o f d isco very fo r a p lain tiff arm ed w ith
n o th in g m o re th an co n clu sio n s. S eco n d , o n ly a co m p lain t th at states a p lau sib le claim
fo r relief su rvives a m o tio n to d ism iss. Id ., at 55 6, 12 7 S .C t. 1955 . D eterm in in g
w h eth er a co m p lain t states a p lau sib le claim fo r relief w ill, as th e C o u rt o f A p p eals
o b served , b e a co n text-sp ecific task th at req u ires th e review in g co u rt to d raw o n its
ju d icial exp erien ce an d co m m o n sen se. 490F .3d , at 157-158. B u t w h ere th e w ell-
p lead ed facts d o n o t p erm it th e co u rt to in fer m o re th an th e m ere p o ssib ility o f
m isco n d u ct, th e co m p lain t h as alleg ed -b u t it h as n o t "sh o w [n ]"-"th at th e p lead er is
(2)-.
en titled to relief." F ed . R u le C iv. P ro c. 8(6)

In keep in g w ith th ese p rin cip les a co u rt co n sid erin g a m o tio n to d ism iss can ch o o se
to b eg in b y id en tifyin g p lead in g s th at, b ecau se th ey are n o m o re th an co n clu sio n s, are
n o t en titled to th e assu m p tio n .o f tru th . W h ile leg al co n clu sio n s can p ro vid e th e
fram ew o rk o f a co m p lain t, th ey m u st b e su p p o rted b y factu al alleg atio n s. W h en th ere
are w ell-p lead ed factu al alleg atio n s, a co u rt sh o u ld assu m e th eir veracity an d th en
d eterm in e w h eth er th ey p lau sib ly g ive. rise to an en titlem en t to relief ;
O ur decision in T w o m b ly illu strates th e tw o -p ro n g ed ap p ro ach . T h ere, w e co n sid ered
th e su fficien cy o f a co m p lain t alleg in g th at in cu m b en t teleco m m u n icatio n s p ro vid ers
h ad en tered an ag reem en t n o t to co m p ete an d to fo restall co m p etitive en try, in
vio latio n o f th e S h erm an A ct, 1,5 U .S .C . 1. R eco g n izin g th at

1 en jo in s o n ly
an tico m p etitive co n d u ct "effected b y a co n tract, co m b in atio n , o r co n sp iracy,"
C o p p e rw e ld C o rp . v. In d e rie n d e n ce T u b e C o rp ., 4 6 7 U .S . 7 5 2 , 7 7 5 ,._ 10 4 S .C t. 2 7 3 1, 8 1
L .E d .2d 628 (1984), th e p lain tiffs in T vvom bly flatly p lead ed th at th e d efen d an ts h a[d ]
en tered in to a co n tract, com b in ation or con sp iracy to p reven t com p etitive en try ...
and
h a[d ] ag reed n o t to co m p ete w ith o n e an o th er." 550 U .S ., at 551, 127 S .C t. 1955
(in tern al q u o tatio n m arks o m itted ). T h e co m p lain t also alleg ed th at th e d efen d an ts'
"p arallel co u rse o f co n d u ct ... to p reven t co m p etitio n " an d in flate p rices w as in d icative
o f th e u n law fu l ag reem en t alleg ed . Ib id . (in tern al q u o tatio n m arks o m itted ).
T h e C o u rt h eld th e p lain tiffs' co m p lain t d eficien t u n d er R u le 8. In d o in g so it first
n o ted th at th e p lain tiffs' assertio n o f an u n law fu l ag reem en t w as a "'leg al co n clu sio n ' "
an d , as su ch , w as n o t en titled to th e assu m p tio n o f tru th . Id ., a t 5 5 5 , 12 7 S .C t. 19 5 5 .
H ad th e C o u rt sim p ly cred ited th e alleg atio n o f a co n sp iracy, th e p lain tiffs w o u ld h ave
stated a claim fo r relief an d b een en titled to p ro ceed p erfo rce. T h e C o u rt n ext

-Th
ad d ressed th e "n u b " o f th e p lain tiffs'co m p lain t-th e w ell-p lead ed , n o n co n clu so ry factu al
alleg atio n o f p arallel b eh avio r-to d eterm in e w h eth er it g ave rise to a "p lau sib le
suggestion of conspiracy." Id ., at 565-566, 127 S .C t. 1955. A ckn o w led g in g th at p arallel
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.aspx?ss=C N T & m t=L aborA ndE m ploym ent..
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009227
129 S.C t.1937
Page 4 of 6
con d u ct w as con sisten t w ith an u n law fu l agreem en t, th e C ou rt n everth eless
con clu d ed th at it d id n ot p lau sib ly su ggest an illicit accord b ecau se it w as n ot on ly
com p atib le w ith , b u t in d eed w as m ore lik ely exp lain ed b y, law fu l, u n ch oreograp h ed
free-m ark et b eh avior. Id ., at 567 127 S .C t. 1955. B ecau se th e w ell-p lead ed fact of
p arallel con d u ct, accep ted as tru e, d id n ot p lau sib ly su ggest an u n law fu l agreem en t,
th e C ou rt h eld th e p lain tiffs' com p lain t m u st b e d ism issed .

Id ., a t 5 7 0 , 12 7 S .C t. 19 5 5 .
[14]
U nder T w o m b ly 's con stru ction of R u le 8, w e con clu d e th at resp on d en t's
com p lain t *1951 h as n ot " n u d ged [h is] claim s" of in vid iou s d iscrim in ation " across th e
lin e from con ceivab le to p lau sib le." Ib id .
W e b egin ou r an alysis b y id en tifyin g th e allegation s in th e com p lain t th at are n ot
en titled to th e assu m p tion of tru th . R esp on d en t p lead s th at p etition ers " k n ew of,
con d on ed , an d w illfu lly an d m aliciou sly agreed to su b ject [h im ]" to h arsh coh d ition s of
con fin em en t " as a m atter of p olicy, solely on accou n t of [h is] religion , race, an d /or
n ation al origin an d for n o legitim ate p en ological in terest." C om p lain t 11 96,

A pp. to P et.
for C ert. 173a-174a. T h e com p lain t alleges th at A sh croft w as th e " p rin cip al arch itect"
of th is in vid iou s p olicy, id ., ifi10, at 157a, an d th at M u eller w as " in stru m en tal" in
ad op tin g an d execu tin g it, id.,11 11, at 157a. T h ese b are a ssertion s, m u ch lik e th e
p lead in g of con sp iracy in T w o m b ly, am ou n t:to n oth in g m ore th an a " form u laic
recitation of th e elem en ts" of a con stitu tion al d iscrim in ation claim , 550 U .S ., at 555,
127 S .C t. 1955, n arilely, th at p etition ers ad op ted a p olicy" 'b ecau se of,' n ot m erely 'in
sp ite of,' its ad verse effects u p on an id en tifiab le grou p ." F eeney, 4 4 2 U .S ., a t 2 7 9 ,9 9
S .C t. 2282. A s su ch , th e allegation s are con clu sory an d n ot en titled to b e assu m ed
tru e. T w o m b ly, su p ra , 5 5 0 U .S ., a t 5 5 4 -5 5 5 , 12 7 S .C t. 19 5 5 . T o b e clea r, w e d o n o t
reject th ese b ald allegation s on th e grou n d th at th ey are u n realistic or n on sen sical. W e
d o n ot so ch aracterize th em an y m ore th an th e C ou rt in
T w o m b ly rejected th e
p lain tiffs' exp ress allegation of a " 'con tract, com b in ation or con sp iracy to p reven t
com p etitive en try,' " id ., a t 5 5 1, 12 7 S .C t. 19 5 5 , b eca u se it th o u g h t th a t cla im to o
ch im erical to b e m ain tain ed . It is th e con clu sory n atu re of resp on d en t's allegation s,
rath er th an th eir extravagan tly fan cifu l n atu re, th at d isen titles th em to th e
p resu m p tion of tru th .
W e n ext con sid er th e factu al allegation s in resp on d en t's com p lain t to d eterm in e if
th ey p lau sib ly su ggest an en titlem en t to relief. T h e com p lain t alleges th at " th e [F B I],
u n d er th e d irection of D efen d an t M U E L L E R , arrested an d d etain ed th ou san d s of A rab
M u slim m en ... as p art of its in vestigation of th e even ts of S ep tem b er 11." C om p lain t 11
47, A p p . to P et. for C ert. 164a. It fu rth er claim s th at " [t]h e p olicy of h old in g p ost-
S ep tem b er-11th d etain ees in h igh ly restrictive con d ition s of con fin em en t u n til th ey
w ere 'cleared ' by the F B I w as app roved by D efendan ts A SH C R O F T " an d M U E L L E R in
d iscu ssion s in th e w eek s after S ep tem b er 11, 2001." Id ., 11 69, at 168a. T ak en as tru e,
th ese allegation s are con sisten t W ith p etition ers' p u rp osefu lly d esign atin g d etain ees " of
h igh in terest" b ecau se of th eir race, religion , or n ation al origin . B u t given m ore lik ely
exp lan ation s, th ey d o n ot p lau sib ly estab lish th is p u rp ose.
T h e S ep tem b er 11 attack s w ere p erp etrated b y 19 A rab M u slim h ijack ers w h o
cou n ted th em selves m em b ers in good stan d in g of al Q aed a, an Islam ic fu n d am en talist
grou p . A l Q aed a w as h ead ed b y an oth er A rab M u slim -O sam a b in L ad en -an d com p osed
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009228
Page 5 of 6
129 S.C t.1937
in larg e p art o f h is A rab M u slim d iscip les. It sh o u ld co m e as n o su rp rise th at a
leg itim ate p o licy d irectin g law en fo rcem en t to arrest an d d etain in d ivid u als b ecau se o f
th eir su sp ected lin k to th e attacks w o u ld p ro d u ce a d isp arate, in cid en tal im p act o n A rab
M u slim s, even th o u g h th e p u rp o se o f th e p o licy w as to targ et n eith er A rab s n o r
M u slim s. O n th e facts resp o n d en t alleg es th e arrests M u eller o versaw w ere likely law fu l
an d ju stified b y h is n o n d iscrim in ato ry in ten t to d etain alien s w h o w ere illeg ally p resen t
in th e U n ited S tates an d w h o h ad p o ten tial co n n ectio n s to th o se w h o co m m itted
terro rist acts. A s b etw een th at "o b vio u s altern ative exp lan atio n " fo r th e arrests,
T w o m b iy, su p ra , at 567, 127 S .C t. 1955, an d th e p u rp o sefu l, in vid io u s d iscrim in atio n
resp o n d en t*1952 asks u s to in fer, d iscrim in atio n is n o t a p lau sib le co n clu sio n .
B u t even if th e co m p lain t's w ell-p lead ed facts g ive rise to a p lau sib le in feren ce th at
resp o n d en t's arrest w as th e resu lt o f u n co n stitu tio n al d iscrim in atio n , th at in feren ce
alo n e w o u ld n o t en title resp o n d en t to relief. It is im p o rtan t to recall th at resp o n d en t's
co m p lain t ch allen g es n eith er th e co n stitu tio n ality o f h is arrest n o r h is in itial d eten tio n
in th e M D C . R esp o n d en t's co n stitu tio n al claim s ag ain st p etitio n ers rest so lely o n th eir
o sten sib le "p o licy o f h o ld in g p o st-S ep tem b er-11th d etain ees" in th e A D M A X S H U o n ce
th ey w ere categ o rized as "o f h ig h in terest." C o m p lain t 1] 69, A p p . to P et. fo r C ert.
168a. T o p revail o n th at th eo ry, th e co m p lain t m u st co n tain facts p lau sib ly sh o w in g
th at p etitio n ers p u rp o sefu lly ad o p ted a p o licy o f classifyin g p o st-S ep tem b er-11
d etain ees as "o f h ig h in terest" b ecau se o f th eir race, relig io n , o r n atio n al o rig in .
T h is th e co m p lain t fails to d o . T h o u g h resp o n d en t alleg es th at vario u s o th er
d efen d an ts, w h o are n o t b efo re u s, m ay h ave lab eled h im a p erso n o f "o f h ig h in terest"
fo r im p erm issib le reaso n s, h is o n ly factu al alleg atio n ag ain st p etitio n ers accu ses th em
o f ad o p tin g a p o licy ap p ro vin g "restrictive co n d itio n s o f co n fin em en t" fo r p o st-
S ep tem b er-11 d etain ees u n til th ey w ere" 'cleared ' b y th e F B I." Ib id . A ccep tin g th e
tru th o f th at alleg atio n , th e co m p lain t d o es n o t sh o w , o r even in tim ate, th at p etitio n ers
p u rp o sefu lly h o u sed d etain ees in th e A D M A X S H U d u e to th eir race, relig io n , o r
n atio n al o rig in . A ll it p lau sib ly su g g ests is th at th e N atio n 's to p law en fo rcem en t
o fficers, in th e afterm ath o f a d evastatin g terro rist attack, so u g h t to keep su sp ected
terro rists in th e m o st secu re co n d itio n s availab le u n til th e su sp ects co u ld b e cleared o f
terro rist activity. R esp o n d en t d o es n o t arg u e, n o r can h e, th at su ch a m o tive w o u ld
vio late p etitio n ers'co n stitu tio n al o b lig atio n s. H e w o u ld n eed to alleg e m o re b y w ay o f
factu al co n ten t to "n u d g [e]" h is claim o f p u rp o sefu l d iscrim in atio n "acro ss th e lin e fro m
a t 5 7 0 , 12 7 S .C t. 19 5 5 .
co n ceivab le to p lau sib le." T w o m b ly, 550

.
T o b e su re, resp o n d en t can attem p t to d raw certain co n trasts b etw een th e p lead in g s
th e C o u rt co n sid ered in T w o m b ly an d th e p lead in g s at issu e h ere. In T w o m b ly, th e
co m p lain t alleg ed g en eral w ro n g d o in g th at exten d ed o ver a p erio d o f years,

id a t 5 5 1,
127 S .C t. 1955, w h ereas h ere th e co m p lain t alleg es d iscrete w ro n g s-fo r in stan ce,
b eatin g s-b y lo w er level G o vern m en t acto rs. T h e alleg atio n s h ere, if tru e, an d if
co n d o n ed b y p etitio n ers, co u ld b e th e b asis fo r so m e in feren ce o f w ro n g fu l in ten t o n
p etitio n ers'p art. D esp ite th ese d istin ctio n s, resp o n d en t's p lead in g s d o n o t su ffice to
state a claim . U n like in T w o m b ly, w h ere th e d o ctrin e o f re sp o n d e a t su p e rio r could bind
th e co rp o rate d efen d an t, h ere, as w e h ave n o ted , p etitio n ers can n o t b e h eld liab le
u n less th ey th em selves acted o n acco u n t o f a co n stitu tio n ally p ro tected ch aracteristic.
Y et resp o n d en t's co m p lain t d o es n o t co n tain an y factu al alleg atio n su fficien t to
p lau sib ly su g g est p etitio n ers'd iscrim in ato ry state o f m in d . H is p lead in g s th u s d o n o t
m eet th e stan d ard n ecessary to co m p ly w ith R u le 8.
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.aspx?ss=C N T 8cm t=L aborA ndE m ploym ent..
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009229
'129 S.C t.1937
Page 6 of 6
It is im p o rtan t to n o te, h o w ever, th at w e exp ress n o o p in io n co n cern in g th e
sufficiency of respondent's com plaint against the defendants w ho are not before us.
R espondent's account of his prison ordeal alleges serious official m isconduct that w e
need no t ad dress here. O ur decision is lim ited to th e determ ination that resp ondent's
co m plaint d oes not entitle him to relief from petitioners.
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.aspx?ss=C N T& m t=LaborA ndEm ploym ent.. . 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009230
1PA SIO PIII9C 9ntext
....
rs,
C o n ley v . G ib so n
case p resen ts.th eion t(trA d O P t q u estion of w h at a p lain tiff
[7] IL I [8 ] .J [9]
T h -is
m u st p lead in ord er to state a claim u n d ell-.51196 7f.the *5 5 5 S h erm an A ct. F ed eral R u le
of C ivil P roced u re 8(a)(!'

eciliq ffo irN y IgV id A R IIIE P illek illageetien t of th e claim
sh ow in g th at th e p leid eIrs en titlettto relref;" -irro-rd -er-to-" give-th e--d efen d an t fair n otice
o f w h a t th e ... cla im is a n d th e g ro u n d s u p o n w h ich it rests," C o n ley v. G ib so n , 355
U .S . 4 1, 4 7 , 7 8 S .C t. 9 9 , 2 L .E d .2 d 8 0 (19 5 7 ). W h ile a co m p la in t a tta ck ed b y .a R u le.12
(4 )(6 ) m o tio n to d ism iss d o es n o t n eed d eta iled fa ctu a l a lleg a tio n s,
ib id .; S an ju an v.
A m erican B d . o f P sych iatry an d N eu ro lo g y, In c.,

4 0 F .3 d 2 4 7 , 2 5 1 (C .A .7 19 9 4 ), a
" en title[m en t]to relief"
p lain tiff's ob ligation to p rovid e th e

**1 -9 6 5 " grou n d s" of -h is req u ires m o re th a n la b els a n d co n clu sio n s, a n d -a fo rm u la ic recita tio n o f th e elem en ts
o f a ca u se o f a ctio n w ill n o t d o , see P ap asan v. A llain , 4 7 8 U .S . 2 6 5 , 2 8 6 , 10 6 S .C t.
2 9 3 2 , 9 2 L .E d .2 d 2 0 9 (19 8 6 ) (o n a m o tio n to d ism iss, co u rts " a re n o t b o u n d to a ccep t
a s tru e a leg a l co n clu sio n co u ch ed a s a fa ctu a l a lleg a tio n " ). F a ctu a l a lleg a tio n s m u st b e
en ou g h to raise a righ t to relief ab o ve th e-sp ecu lativ e level, see 5 C . W rig h t & A . M iller,.
F ed era l P ra ctice a n d P ro ced u re 12 16 ,_ p p . 2 3 5 -2 3 6 d ed .2 0 0 4 ) (h erein a fter W rig h t
& . M iller) (" [T ]h e p lea d in g m u st co n ta in so m eth in g m o re ... th a n ... a sta tem en t o f
fa cts th a t m erely crea tes a su sp icio n [o f] a leg a lly co g n iza b le rig h t o f a ctio n " ),
FN 3 o n
th e A S S U M P T IO N T H A T A L L T H E allegation s in th e com p lain t are tru e (even if d ou b tfu l
5 3 4 U .S . 5 0 6 , 5 0 8 , n . 1,12 2
in fact), 'see, e.g ., *5 5 6 S w ierkiew icz V . S o rem a N . A .,
4
9
0 U .S . 3 19 ,3 2 7 , 10 9 S .C t.
N
ei
tzke
V
.
W
i
l
l
iam
s,
S .C t. 9 9 2 , 15 2 L .E d .2 d 1 (2 0 0 2 );
18 2 7 , 10 4 L .E d .2 d 3 3 8 (19 8 9 ) (" R u le 12 (b )(6 .) d o es n o t co u n ten a n ce ... d ism issa ls
b a sed o n a ju d g e's d isb elief o f a co m p la in t's fa ctu a l a lleg a tio n s" );

S ch eu er v. R h o d es,
4 16 U .S . 2 3 2 , 2 3 6 , 9 4 S .C t. 16 8 3 , 4 0 L .E d .2 d 9 0 (19 7 4 ) (a w ell-p lea d ed co m p la in t
m a y p ro ceed ev en if it a p p ea rs " th a t a reco v ery is v ery rem o te a n d u n lik ely " ).
F _N 3. T h e d issen t greatly oversim p lifies m atters b y su ggestin g th at th e
F ed era l R u les so m eh o w d isp en sed w ith th e p lea d in g o f fa cts a lto g eth er. S ee
post, at 1979 (op in ion of S T E V E N S , I.) (p lead in g stan d ard of F ed eral R u les
" d o es n o t req u ire, o r ev en in v ite, th e p lea d in g o f fa cts" ). W h ile, fo r m o st
ty p es o f ca ses, th e F ed era l R u les elim in a ted th e cu m b erso m e req u irem en t
th a t a cla im a n t " set o u t in d etail th e fa cts u p o n w h ich h e b a ses h is cla im ,"
C onley v . G ib s o n , 3 5 5 U .S . 4 1,4 7 , 7 8 S .C t. 9 9 , 2 L .E d .2 d 8 0 (19 5 7 )
(em p h a sis a d d ed ), R u le 8 (a )(2 ) still req u ires a " sh o w in g ," ra th er th a n a
b la n k et a ssertio n , o f en titlem en t to relief: W ith o u t so m e fa ctu a l a lleg a tio n in
th e co m p la in t, it is h a rd to see h o w a cla im a n t co u ld sa tisfy th e req u irem en t
of p rovid in g n ot on ly " fair n otice" of th e n atu re of th e claim , b u t also
" g ro u n d s" o n w h ich th e cla im rests. S ee 5 W rig h t & M iller

12 0 2 , a t 9 4 , 9 5
(R u le 8 (a ) " co n tem p la te[s] th e sta tem en t o f circu m sta n ces, o ccu rren ces,
a n d ev en ts in su p p o rt o f th e cla im p resen ted " a n d d o es n o t a u th o rize a
p lea d er's " b a re a v erm en t th a t h e w a n ts relief a n d is en titled to it" ).
..
,....
[10] .,:.-fi[11] ..I
[-12] I:1_
, [13 ] .., In a p p ly in g th ese g en era l sta n d a rd s to a 1 cla im , w e
h o ld th a t sta tin g )su ch a cla im req u ires a co m p la in t w ith en o u g h fa ctu a l m a tter (ta k en
a s tru e) to su g g est th a t a n a g reem en t w a s m a d e.. A sk in g fo r p la u sib le g ro u n d s to in fer
a n a g reem en td o es n o t im p o se a p ro b a b ility req u irem en t a t th e p lea d in g sta g e; it
sim p ly ca lls fo r en o u g h fa ct to ra ise a rea so n a b le ex p ecta tio n th a t d isco v ery w ill rev ea l
, .
littRsge/swdizweaitavvoninthnaa bgxziem vxttgom tW tgM gairify *fe'efigffilaID Y ia q :.6 1 I5

A111
NLRB-FOIA-00009231
127 S.C t.1955
Page 2 of 8
evid en ce o f illeg al ag reem en t.F" A n d ,o f co u rse,a w ell-p lead ed co m p lain t m ay
p ro ceed even if it strikes a savvy ju d g e th at actu al p ro o f o f th o se facts is im p ro b ab le,
an d "th at a reco very is very rem o te an d u n likely." Ib id . In id en tifyin g facts th at are
su g g estive en o u g h to ren d er a 1 co n sp iracy p lau sib le,w e h ave th e b en efit **1 9 6 6
o f th e p rio r ru lin g s an d co n sid ered view s o f lead in g co m m en tato rs,alread y q u o ted ,
th at law fu l p arallel co n d u ct fails to b esp eak u n law fu l ag reem en t. It m akes sen se to
say,th erefo re,th at an alleg atio n o f p arallel co n d u ct an d a b are assertio n o f co n sp iracy
w ill n o t su ffice. W ith o u t *5 5 7 m o re,p arallel co n d u ct d o es n o t su g g est co n sp iracy,an d
a co n clu so ry alleg atio n o f ag reem en t at so m e u n id en tified p o in t d o es n o t su p p ly facts
ad eq u ate to sh o w illeg ality. H en ce,w h en alleg atio n s o f p arallel co n d u ct are set o u t in
o rd er to m ake a 1 claim ,th ey m u st b e p laced in a co n text th at raises a su g g estio n o f
a p reced in g ag reem en t,n o t m erely p arallel co n d u ct th at co u ld ju st as w ell b e
in d ep en d en t actio n .
F N 4. C o m m en tato rs h ave o ffered several exam p les o f p arallel co n d u ct
alleg atio n s th at w o u ld state a 1 claim u n d er th is stan d ard . S ee, e .g ., 6
A reed a & H o ven kam p ifi 1425,at 167-185 (d isc iu ssin g "p arallel b eh avio r th at
w o u ld p ro b ab ly n o t resu lt fro m ch an ce,co in cid en ce,in d ep en d en t resp o n ses
to co m m o n stim u li,o r m ere in terd ep en d en ce u n aid ed b y an ad van ce
u n d erstan d in g am o n g th e p arties"); B lech m an ,C o n scio u s P arallelism ,
S ig n allin g an d F acilitatin g D evices: T h e P ro b lem o f T acit C o llu sio n U n d er th e
A n titru st L aw s,24 N .Y .L . S . L .R ev. 881,899 (1979) (d escrib in g "co n d u ct
[th at] in d icates th e so rt o f restricted freed o m o f actio n an d sen se o f
o b lig atio n th at o n e g en erally asso ciates w ith ag reem en t"). T h e p arties in th is
case ag ree th at "co m p lex an d h isto rically u n p reced en ted ch an g es in p ricin g
stru ctu re m ad e at th e very sam e tim e b y m u ltip le co m p etito rs,an d m ad e fo r
n o o th er d iscern ib le reaso n " w o u ld su p p o rt a p lau sib le in feren ce o f
co n sp iracy. B rief fo r R esp o n d en ts 37; see also R ep ly B rief fo r P etitio n ers 12.
T h e n eed at th e p lead in g stag e fo r alleg atio n s p lau sib ly su g g estin g (n o t m erely
co n sisten t w ith ) ag reem en t reflects th e th resh o ld req u irem en t o f R u le 8(a_)_(2) th at th e
"p lain statem en t" p o ssess en o u g h h eft to "sh o [w ] th at th e p lead er is en titled to relief."
A statem en t o f p arallel co n d u ct,even co n d u ct co n scio u sly u n d ertaken ,n eed s so m e
settin g su g g estin g th e ag reem en t n ecessary to m ake o u t a _1. claim ; w ith o u t th at
fu rth er circu m stan ce p o in tin g to w ard a m eetin g o f th e m in d s,an acco u n t o f a
d efen d an t's co m m ercial effo rts stays in n eu tral territo ry. A n alleg atio n o f p arallel
co n d u ct is th u s m u ch like a n aked assertio n o f co n sp iracy in a J co m p lain t: it g ets
th e co m p lain t clo se to statin g a claim ,b u t w ith o u t so m e fu rth er factu al en h an cem en t it
sto p s sh o rt o f th e lin e b etw een p o ssib ility an d p lau sib ility o f "en title[m en t] to relief."
C f. D M R e s e a rc h , In c . v . C o lle g e o f A m . P a th o lo g is ts , 170 F .3d 5 3 ,5 6 (C .A .1 1 9 9 9 )
("[T ]erm s like 'co n sp iracy,' o r even 'ag reem en t,' are b o rd er-lin e: th ey m ig h t w ell b e
su fficien t in co n ju n ctio n w ith a m o re sp ecific alleg atio n -fo r exam p le,id en tifyin g a
w ritten ag reem en t o r even a b asis fo r in ferrin g a tacit ag reem en t,... b u t a co u rt is n o t
req u ired to accep t su ch term s as a su fficien t b asis fo r a co m p lain t")!"
F N 5. T h e b o rd er in D M R esearch w as th e lin e b etw een th e co n clu so ry an d
th e factu al. H ere it lies b etw een th e factu ally n eu tral an d th e factu ally
su g g estive. E ach m u st b e cro ssed to en ter th e realm o f p lau sib le liab ility.
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.asPx?ss=C N T 8cm t=L aborA ndE m ploym ent..
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009232
127 S.C t.1955
Page 3 of 8
W e allu d ed to th e p ractical sign ifican ce of th e R u le 8 en titlem en t req u irem en t in
D u ra P h arm aceu ticals, In c. v. B ro u d o , 5 4 4 U .S . 3 3 6 , 12 5 S .C t. 16 2 7 , 16 1 L .E d 2 d 5 7 7
(2.005), w h en w e exp lain ed th at som eth in g b eyon d th e m ere p ossib ility of loss
cau sation m u st b e *5 5 8 alleged , lest a p lain tiff w ith " 'a largely grou n d less claim ' " 'b e
allow ed to " 'tak e u p th e tim e of a n u m b er of oth er p eop le, w ith th e righ t to d o so
rep resen tin g an in terro rem in crem en t of th e settlem en t valu e.' " Id ., a t 3 4 7 , 12 5 S .C t.
1627 (q u otin g B lu e C h ip S tam p s v. M an o r D ru g _S to res, 421 U .S . 723, 743..., 95S .
19 17 ,4 4 L.E d.2c1-539 (1975)). S o, w h en th e allegation s in a com p lain t, h ow ever tru e,.
cou ld n ot raise a claim of en titlem en t to relief, " 'th is b asic d eficien cy sh ou ld ... b e
exp osed at th e p oin t of m in im u m exp en d itu re of tim e an d m on ey b y th e p arties an d
th e cou rt.'" 5 W righ t & M iller 1216, at 233-234 (q u otin g D aves v. H aw aiian D red g in g
C o ., 114 F .S u .p p . 643, 645 (D .1-law aii 1953)); see also D u ra, su p ra, a t 3 4 6 , 12 5
1627;_ A sah i G lass C o . V . P en tech P h arm aceu ticals, In c., 2 8 9 F .S u p p .2 d 9 8 6 , 9 9 5
(N .D .III.2003.) (P osn er, J., sittin g b y d esign ation ) (" [S ]om e th resh old of p lau sib ility
m u st b e crossed at th e ou tset b efore a p aten t an titru st case sh ou ld b e p erm itted to go
in to its in evitab ly costly an d p rotracted d iscovery p h ase" ).
T h u s, it is on e th in g to b e cau tiou s b efore d ism issin g an an titru st com p lain t in
ad van ce of d iscovery, cf. **1 9 6 7 P o ller v. C o lu m b ia B ro ad castin g S ystem , In c., 368
U .S . 4 6 4 , 4 7 3 , 8 2 S .C t. 4 8 6 , 7 L .E d .2 d 4 5 8 .(19 6 2 ), b u t q u ite a n o th er to fo rg et th a t
p roceed in g to an titru st d iscovery can b e exp en sive. A s w e in d icated over 20 years ago
in A sso ciated G en . C o n tracto rs o f C al. In c. v. C arp en ters,

4 5 9 U .S . 5 19 , 5 2 8 , n . 17 ,
103 S .C t. 897,74 L .E d .2d 723 (1983), " a d istrict cou rt m u st retain th e p ow er to in sist
u p on som e sp ecificity in p lead in g b efore allow in g a p oten tially m assive factu al
con troversy to p roceed ." S ee also C ar_ C arriers, In c. v. F o rd M o to r C o ., 745 F .2d 1101,
1106 (C .A .7 1984) (" [T ]h e costs of m od ern fed eral an titru st litigation an d th e
in creasin g caseload of th e fed eral cou rts cou n sel again st sen d in g th e p arties in to
d iscovery w h en th ere is n o reason ab le lik elih ood th at th e p lain tiffs can con stru ct a
claim from th e even ts related in th e com p lain t" ); N ote, M od elin _g th e E ffect of O n e-W ay
F ee S h iftin g on D iscover_y A b u se in P rivate A n titru st L itigation , 78 N .Y . & U . L .R ev.
18 8 7 ,18 9 8 :18 9 9 ...(20_03).(d iscu ssin g th e u n u su ally h igh cost of d iscovery in an titru st
cases); *5 5 9 M an u al for C om p lex L itigation ., F ou rth , 30, p , 519 (2004) (d escrib in g
exten sive scop e of d iscovery in an titru st cases); M em oran d u m from P au l V . N iem eyer,
C h air, A d visory C om m ittee on C ivil R u les, to H on . A n th on y J. S cirica, C h air, C om m ittee
on R u les of P ractice an d P roced u re (M ay 11, 1999), 192 F .R .D . 354, 357 (2000)
(rep ortin g th at d iscovery accou n ts for as m u ch as 9,0 p ercen t of litigation costs w h en
d iscovery is actively em p loyed ). T h at p oten tial exp en se is ob viou s en ou gh in th e
p resen t case: p lain tiffs rep resen t a p u tative class of at least 90 p ercen t of all
su b scrib ers to local telep h on e or h igh -sp eed In tern et service in th e con tin en tal U n ited
S tates, in an action again st A m erica's largest telecom m u n ication s firm s (w ith m an y
th ou sa n d s of em p loyees gen eratin g ream s an d gig ab ytes of b u sin ess record s) for .
u n sp ecified (if an y) in stan ces of an titru st violation s th at alleged ly occu rred over a
p erio d o f sev en y ea rs.
It is n o an sw er to say th at a claim ju st sh y of a p lau sib le en titlem en t to relief can , if
grou n d less, b e w eed ed ou t early in th e d iscovery p rocessIh rou gh " carefu l case
m an agem en t," p o st at 1975, given th e com m on lam en t th at th e su ccess of ju d icial
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.aspx?ss=C N T & m t=L aborA ndE m ploym ent.. . 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009233
.127 S.C t.1955
Page 4 of 8
su p ervisio n in ch eckin g d isco very ab u se h as b een o n th e m o d est sid e. S ee,

e.g .,
E asterb ro o k,D isco very as A b u se,69 B .U .L .R ev. 635,638 (1989) ("Ju d g es can d o little
ab o u t im p o sitio n al d isco very w h en p arties co n tro l th e leg al claim s to b e p resen ted an d
co n d u ct th e d isco very th em selves"). A n d it is self-evid en t th at th e p ro b lem o f d isco very
ab u se can n o t b e so lved b y "carefu l scru tin y o f evid en ce at th e su m m ary ju d g m en t
stag e," m u ch less "lu cid in stru ctio n s to ju ries," p o st, at 1975; th e th reat o f d isco very
exp en se w ill p u sh co st-co n scio u s d efen d an ts to settle even an em ic cases b efo re
reach in g th o se p ro ceed in g s. P ro b ab ly,th en ,it is o n ly b y takin g care to req u ire
alleg atio n s th at reach th e level su g g estin g co n sp iracy th at w e can h o p e to avo id th e
p o ten tially en o rm o u s exp en se o f d isco very in cases w ith n o " 'reaso n ab ly fo u n d ed h o p e
th at th e [d isco very] p ro cess w ill reveal relevan t evid en ce' "to su p p o rt a 1 claim .
*5 6 0 D ura, 5 4 4 U .S .,a t 3 4 7 1 2 5 S .C t. 1 6 2 7 (q u o tin g B lu e C h ip S ta m p s, su p ra , a t
7 4 1 ,9 5 S .C t. 1 9 1 7 ; a lte ra tio n in D u ra ).M .6
FN 6 T h e d issen t takes h eart in th e reassu ran ces o f p lain tiffs'co u n sel th at
d isco very w o u ld b e " ' "p h ased "' "an d "lim ited to th e existen ce o f th e
alleg ed co n sp iracy an d class certificatio n ." P ost, at ----24. B u t d eterm in in g
w h eth er so m e illeg al ag reem en t m ay h ave taken p lace b etw een u n sp ecified
p erso n s at d ifferen t IL E C s (each a m u ltib illio n d o llar co rp o ratio n w ith leg io n s
o f m an ag em en t level em p lo yees) at so m e p o in t o ver seven years is a
sp raw lin g ,co stly,an d h u g ely tim e-co n su m in g u n d ertakin g n o t easily
su scep tib le to th e kin d o f lin e d raw in g an d case m an ag em en t th at th e
d issen t en visio n s. P erh ap s th e b est an sw er to th e d issen t's o p tim ism th at
an titru st d isco very is o p en to effective ju d icial co n tro l is a m o re exten sive
q u o tatio n o f th e au th o rity ju st cited ,a ju d g e w ith a b ackg ro u n d in an titru st
law . G iven th e system th at w e h ave,th e h o p e o f effective ju d icial
su p ervisio n is slim : "T h e tim in g is all w ro n g . T h e p lain tiff files a sketch y
co m p lain t (th e R u les o f C ivil P ro ced u re d isco u rag e fu lso m e d o cu m en ts),an d
d isco very is lau n ch ed . A ju d icial o fficer d o es n o t kn o w th e d etails o f th e case
th e p arties w ill p resen t an d in th eo ry ca n n o t kn o w th e d etails. D isco very is
u sed to fin d th e d etails. T h e ju d icial o fficer alw ays kn o w s less th an th e
p arties,an d th e p arties th em selves m ay n o t kn o w very w ell w h ere th ey are
g o in g o r w h at th ey exp ect to fin d . A m ag istrate su p ervisin g d isco very d o es
n o t-can n o t-kn o w th e exp ected p ro d u ctivity o f a g iven req u est,b ecau se th e
n atu re o f th e req u ester's claim an d th e co n ten ts o f th e files (o r h ead ) o f th e
ad verse p arty are u n kn o w n . Ju d icial o fficers can n o t m easu re th e co sts an d
b en efits to th e req u ester an d so can n o t iso late im p o sitio n al req u ests.
R eq u esters h ave n o reaso n to d isclo se th eir o w n estim ates b ecau se th ey
g ain fro m im p o sin g co sts o n rivals (arid m ay lo se fro m an im p ro vem en t in
accu racy). T h e p o rtio n s o f th e R u les o f C ivil P ro ced u re callin g o n ju d g es to
trim b ack excessive d em an d s,th erefo re,h ave b een ,an d are d o o m ed to b e,
h o llo w . W e can n o t p reven t w h at w e can n o t d etect; w e can n o t d etect w h at
w e can n o t d efin e; w e can n o t d efin e 'ab u sive'd isco very excep t in th eo ry,
because-in p ractice w e lack essen tial in fo rm atio n ." E asterb ro o k,D isco very as
A b u se,69 B .U .L .R ev . 63 5,638 -6 39 (1 989 ).
**1 9 6 8 [14] L d . P lain tiffs d o n o t,o f co u rse,d isp u te th e req u irem en t o f p lau sib ility
an d th e n eed fo r so m eth in g m o re th an m erely p arallel b eh avio r exp lain ed in T heatre
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009234
Page 5 of 8
127 S.C t.1955
E n terp rises,
M o n sa n to , and M a tsu sh ita , an d th eir m ain argu m en t again st th e
p lau sib ility stan d ard at th e p lead in g stage is its osten sib le *5 6 1 con flict w ith an early
statem en t of ou rs con stru in g R u le 8. Ju stice B lack 's op in ion for th e C ou rt in

C onley v.
G ibson sp ok e n ot on ly of th e n eed for fair n otice of th e grou n d s for en titlem en t to relief
b u t of " th e accep ted ru le th at a com p lain t sh ou ld n ot b e d ism issed for failu re to state a
claim u n less it ap p ears b eyon d d ou b t th at th e p lain tiff can p rove n o set of facts in
a t 4 5 -4 6 ,7 8 S .C t. 9 9 .
su p p ort of h is claim w h ich w ou ld en title h im to relief." 355
th is " n o set of facts" lan gu age can b e read in isolation as sayin g th at an y statem en t
revealin g th e th eory of th e claim w ill su ffice u n less its factu al im p ossib ility m ay b e
sh ow n from th e face of th e p lead in gs; an d th e C ou rt of A p p eals ap p ears to h ave read
C o o ky in som e su ch w ay w h en form u latin g its u n d erstan d in g of th e p rop er p lead in g
stan d ard , see 425 F .3d ,.at 106, 114 (in vok in g C onley's " n o set of facts" lan gu age in
d escrib in g th e stan d ard for d ism issal)." 17
F N ]. T h e C ou rt of A p p eals also relied on C h ief Ju d ge C lark 's su ggestion

in
N a g ler v. A d m ira l C o rp ., 248 F .2d 319 (C .A .2 1957), th at facts in d icatin g
p arallel con d u ct alon e su ffice to state a claim u n d er 1. 425 F .3d , at 114
(citing N agler, su p ra , a t 3 2 5 ). B u t N a g ler gave n o exp lan ation for citin g
T h ea tre E n terp rises (w h ich u p h eld a d en ial of a d irected verd ict for p lain tiff
on th e grou n d th at p roof of p arallelism w as n ot p roof of con sp iracy) as
au th ority th at p lead in g p arallel con d u ct su fficed to p lead a S h erm an A ct
con sp iracy. N ow th at M o n sa n to C o . v. S p ra y-R ite S ervice C o rp ., 465 U .S .
7 5 2 , 10 4 S .C t. 14 6 4 , 7 9 L .E d .2 d 7 7 5 (19 8 4 .), a n d M a tsu sh ita E lec. In d u stria l
C o . v. Z en ith R a d io C o rp ., 4 7 5 U .S . 5 7 4 , 10 6 S .C t. .3 4 8 ,
9 L .E d .2d 538
(1986), h ave m ad e it clear th at n eith er p arallel con d u ct n or con sciou s
p arallelism , tak en alon e, raise th e n ecessary im p lication of con sp iracy, it is
tim e for a fresh look at ad eq u acy of p lead in g w h en a claim rests on p arallel
action .
..
'
O n su ch a focu sed an d literal read in g of C onley's " n o set of facts," a w h olly
con clu sory statem en t of claim w ou ld su rvive a m otion to d ism iss w h en ever th e
p lead in gs left op en th e p ossib ility th at a p lain tiff m igh t later estab lish som e " set of .
[u n d isclosed ] facts" to su p p ort recovery. S o h ere, th e C ou rt of A p p eals sp ecifically
fou n d th e p rosp ect of u n earth in g d irect evid en ce of con sp iracy su fficien t to p reclu d e
d ism issal, even th ou gh th e com p lain t **1 9 6 9 d oes n ot set forth a sin gle *5 6 2 fact in
a co n tex t th a t su g g ests a n a g reem en t. 4 2 5 F .3 d , a t 10 6 , 114 . It seem s fa ir to sa y th a t
th is ap p roach to p lead in g w ou ld d isp en se w ith an y sh ow in g of a " 'reason ab ly fou n d ed
h op e' " th at a p lain tiff w ou ld b e ab le to m ak e a case, see D ura, 5 4 4 U .S ., a t 3 4 7 , 12 5
S .C t. 1627 (q u otin g B lu e C h ip S ta m p s, 4 2 1 U .S ., a t 7 4 1, 9 5 S .C t. 19 17 ); M r.
M icaw b er's op tim ism w ou ld b e en ou gh .
S eein g th is, a good m an y ju d ges an d com m en tators h ave b alk ed at tak in g th e literal
term s of th e C on/ay p assage as a p lead in g stan d ard . S ee, e.g ., C a r C a rriers, 745
at 1106 (" C onley h as n ever b een in terp reted literally" ) an d , " [i]n p ractice, a
com p lain t ... m u st con tain eith er d irect or in feren tial allegation s resp ectin g all th e
m aterial elem en ts n ecessary to su stain recovery u n d er so m e viab le legal
th eory" (in tern al q u otation m ark s om itted ; em p h asis an d om ission in origin al);
A scon
P ro p erties, In c. v. M o b il O il C o , 8 6 6 F .2 d 114 9 , 115 5 (C .A .9 19 8 9 ) (ten sio n b etw een
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttextaspx?ss=C N T8unt=LaborA ndEm ploym ent..
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009235
Page 6 of 8
127 S.C t.1955
C onley's " n o set of facts" lan gu age an d its ack n ow led gm en t th at a p lain tiff m u st
p rovid e th e " grou n d s" on w h ich h is claim rests); O 'B rien v. D iG razia, 544 F .2d 543,.
546, n . 3 (C .A .1 1976) (" [W ]h en a p lain tiff ... su p p lies facts to su p p ort h is claim , w e d o
n ot th in k th at C onley im p oses a d u ty on th e cou rts.to con ju re u p u n p lead ed facts th at
m igh t tu rn a frivolou s claim of u n con stitu tion al ... action in to a su b stan tial on e" );
M cG reg or v. Ind ustrial E xcess Landfill, Inc., 8 5 6 F .2 d 3 9 , 4 2 -4 3 (C .A .6 19 8 8 ) (q u o tin g
O 'B rien's an alysis); H azard , F rom W h om N o S ecrets A re H id ,_76 T ex. L .R ev. 1665,.
1685(1998). (d escrib in g C onley as h avin g " tu rn ed R u le 8 on its h ead " ); M arcu s, T h e
R evival of F act P lead in g U n d er th e F ed eral R u les of C ivil P roced u re, 86 C olu m . L .R ev.
433, 463-465..(1986). (n otin g ten sion b etw een C onley an d su b seq u en t u n d erstan d in gs
of R u le 8).
W e cou ld go on , b u t th ere is n o n eed to p ile u p fu rth er citation s to sh ow th at
C onley's " n o set of facts" lan gu age h as b een q u estion ed , criticized , an d exp lain ed aw ay
lon g en ou gh . T o b e fair to th e C on/ey C ou rt, th e p assage sh ou ld b e u n d erstood in ligh t
of th e op in ion 's p reced in g su m m ary of th e com p lain t's*563 con crete allegation s, w h ich
th e C ou rt q u ite reason ab ly u n d erstood as am p ly statin g a claim for relief. B u t th e
p assage so often q u oted fails to m en tion th is u n d erstan d in g on th e p art of th e C ou rt,
an d after p u zzlin g th e p rofession for 50 years, th is fam ou s ob servation h as earn ed its
retirem en t. T h e p h rase is b est forgotten as an in com p lete, n egative gloss on an
accep ted p lead in g stan d ard : on ce a claim h as b een stated ad eq u ately, it m ay b e
su p p orted b y sh ow in g an y set of facts con sisten t w ith th e allegation s in th e com p lain t.
S ee S anjuan, 40 F .3d ,..at 251 (on ce a claim for relief h as b een stated , a p lain tiff
" receives th e b en efit of im agin ation , so lon g as th e h yp oth eses are con sisten t w ith th e
com p lain t" ); accord , S w ierkiew icz, 5 3 4 ..S ., a t 5 14 , 12 2 S .C t. 9 9 2 ; N ational
O rg a n iza tio n fo r W o m en , In c. v. S ch eid ler, 5 10 U .S . 2 4 9 , 2 5 6 , 114 S .C t. 7 9 8 , 12 7
L .E d .2d 99 (1.994); I-U . In c. v. N o rth w estern B ell T elep h o n e C o ., 4 9 2 U .S . 2 2 9 ,_ 2 4 9 -
2 5 0 , 10 9 S .C t. 2 8 9 5 , 10 6 L .E d .2 d 19 5 (19 8 9 ); H ishon v. K ing & S palding, 4 6 7 U .S . 6 9 ,
7 3 .J 10 4 S .C t. 2 2 2 9 ,.8 1 L .E d .2 d 5 9 (19 8 4 ). C onley, th en , d escrib ed th e b read th of
op p ortu n ity to p rove w h at an ad eq u ate com p lain t claim s, n ot th e m in im u m stan d ard of
ad eq u ate p lead in g to govern a com p lain t's su rvival!"
FNB. B ecau se C onley's " 'n o set of facts' " lan gu age w as on e of ou r earliest
statem en ts ab ou t p lead in g u n d er th e F ed eral R u les, it is n o su rp rise th at it
h as sin ce b een " cited as au th ority" b y th is C ou rt an d oth ers.

P ost, a t 19 7 8 .
A lth ou gh w e h ave n ot p reviou sly exp lain ed th e circu m stan ces an d rejected
th e literal read in g of th e p assage em b raced b y th e C ou rt of rA p p eals, ou r
an alysis com p orts w ith th is C ou rt's statem en ts in th e years sin ce

C onley.
S ee D ura P harm aceuticals, In c. v. B rou do, 5 4 4 U .S . 3 3 6 , 3 4 7 , 12 5 S .C t.
1627 (2005) (req u irin g " 'reason ab ly fou n d ed h op e th at th e [d iscovery]
p rocess w ill reveal relevan t evid en ce' " to su p p ort th e claim (q u otin g m ue
C h.ip_S tam ps v. M anor D rug S tores, 4 2 1 U .S . 7 2 3 , 7 4 1,, 9 5 S .C t. 19 17 , 4 4
L .E d .2d 539 (1975)); (alteration in D u ra )); A sso cia ted G en . C o n tra cto rs o f
C a l In c. v. C a rp en ters, 4 5 9 U .S . 5 19 , 5 2 6 , 10 3 S .C t. 8 9 7 , 7 4 L .E d .2 d 7 2 3
1983) ("It is n ot ... p rop er to assu m e th at [th e p lain tiff] can p rove facts
th at it h as n ot alleged or th at th e d efen d an ts h ave violated th e an titru st law s
in w ays th at h ave n ot b een alleged " );

W ilson v. S chnettler, 3 6 5 U .S . 3 8 1,
383., 81 S .C t. 632,
5 L .E d .2d 620 (1961) (" In th e ab sen ce of ... an allegation
[th at th e arrest w as m ad e w ith ou t p rob ab le cau se] th e cou rts b elow cou ld
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.aspx?ss=C N T 8ant=L aborA ndE m ploym ent.. . 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009236
IN
Page 7 of 8
127 S.C t.1955
n ot, n or can w e, assu m e th at resp on d en ts arrested p etition er w ith ou t
p rob ab le cau se to b elieve th at h e h ad com m itted ... a n arcotics offen se" ).
N or are w e reach in g ou t to d ecid e th is issu e in a case w h ere th e m atter w as
n ot raised b y th e p arties, see p o st, at 1979, sin ce b oth th e IL E C s an d th e
G overn m en t h igh ligh t th e p rob lem s stem m in g from a literal in terp retation of
C P P leY 's " n o set of facts" lan gu age an d seek clarification of th e stan d ard .
B rief for P etition ers 27-28; B rief for U n ited S tates as A m icu s C u ria e 22-25;
see also B rief for R esp on d en ts 17 (d escrib in g " [p ]etition ers an d th eir am ici"
as m ou n tin g an " attack on C onley's 'n o set of facts' stan d ard " ).
T h e d issen t fin d s relevan ce in C ou rt of A p p eals p reced en ts from th e
1940s, w h ich alleged ly gave rise to C onley's " n o set of facts" lan gu age.
S ee p o st, a t 19 7 9 - 19 8 1. E v en in d u lg in g th is lin e o f a n a ly sis, th ese ca ses
d o n ot ch allen ge th e u n d erstan d in g th at, b efore p roceed in g to d iscovery, a
com p lain t m u st allege facts su ggestive of illegal con d u ct. S ee, e.g ., L eim er
v. S ta te M u t. L ife A ssu r. C o ., 108 F .2d 302, 305 (C .A .8 1940) (" '[I]f, in
view of w h at is alleged , it can reason ab ly b e con ceived th at th e p lain tiffs ...
cou ld , u p on a trial, estab lish a case w h ich w ou ld en title th em to ... relief,
th e m otion to d ism iss sh ou ld n ot h ave b een gran ted ' " );

C o n tin en ta l
C o llieries, In c. v. S h o b er,
130 F .2d 631, 635 (C .A .3 1942) (" N o m atter h ow
lik ely it m ay seem th at th e p lead er w ill b e u n ab le to p rove h is case, h e is
en titled , u p on averrin g a claim , to an op p ortu n ity to try to p rove it" ).
R ath er, th ese cases stan d for th e u n ob jection ab le p rop osition th at, w h en a
com p lain t ad eq u ately states a claim , it m ay n ot b e d ism issed b ased on a
d istrict cou rt's assessm en t th at th e p lain tiff w ill fail to fin d evid en tiary
su p p ort for h is allegation s or p rove h is claim to th e satisfaction of th e
factfln d er. C f. S ch eu er v. R h o d es, 4 16 U .S . 2 3 2 , 2 3 6 , 9 4 S .C t. 16 8 3 , 4 0
L .E d .2d 90..(1974) (a d istrict cou rt w eigh in g a m otion to d ism iss ask s " n ot
w h eth er a p lain tiff w ill u ltim ately p revail b u t w h eth er th e claim an t is
en titled to offer evid en ce to su p p ort th e claim s" ).
*5 6 4 **1 9 7 0 III
[15] i W h en w e look for p lau sib ility in th is com p lain t, w e agree w ith th e D istrict
C ou rt th at p lain tiffs' claim of con sp iracy in restrain t of trad e com es u p sh ort. T o b egin
w ith , th e com p lain t leaves n o d ou b t th at p lain tiffs rest th eir 1 claim on d escrip tion s of
p arallel con d u ct an d n ot on an y in d ep en d en t allegation of actu al agreem en t am on g th e
IL E C s. S upra, at 1962 - 1963. A lth ou gh in form a few stray statem en ts sp eak d irectly
on fair read in g th ese are m erely legal con clu sion s restin g on th e p rior
of agreem en t,
allegation s. T h u s, th e com p lain t*565 first tak es accou n t of th e alleged " ab sen ce of an y
m ean in gfu l com p etition b etw een [th e IL E C s] in on e an oth er's m ark ets," " th e p arallel
cou rse of con d u ct th at each [IL E C ] en gaged in to p reven t com p etition from C L E C s,"
" an d th e oth er facts an d m ark et circu m stan ces alleged [earlier]" ; " in ligh t of" th ese,
th e com p lain t con clu d es " th at [th e IL E C s] h ave en tered in to a con tract, com b in ation or
con sp iracy to p reven t com p etitive en try in to th eir ....m ark ets an d h ave agreed n ot to
com p ete w ith on e an oth er." C om p lain t 5 1, A p p . 27.

10 T h e n u b of th e **1 9 7 1
com p lain t, th en , is th e IL E C s' p arallel b eh avior, con sistin g of step s to k eep th e C L E C s
ou t an d m an ifest d isin terest in b ecom in g C L E C s th em selves, an d its su fficien cy tu rn s
on th e su ggestion s raised b y th is con d u ct w h en view ed in ligh t of com m on econ om ic
-9
exp erien ce.E N-11
littps://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.aspx?ss=C N T& m t=LaborA ndEm ploym ent..
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009237
Page 8 of 8
127 S.C t.1955
https://w eb2.w estlaw .com /result/docum enttext.aspx?ss=C N T& m t=LaborA ndEm ploym ent..
. 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009238
M IN O R ITY M EM B ER S:
M A .IO R IT Y M E M B E R S :
G E O R G E M ILL E R , C A LIF O R N IA
JO H N K L IN E . M IN N E S O T A . C h a irm a n
S e n io r D u rn o crctic M a m h a r
TH O M A S E . P E TR I, W IS C O N S IN
H O W A R D P . -B U C K " M G IC E O N , CAL IF O R M A
JU D Y D IG G E R ?, ILLIN O ,S
T o n n R U S S E LL P LA TTE . P E N N S Y LV A N IA
JO E W ILS O N . S O U TH C A R O L IN A
V IR G IN IA R M . N O R T H C A R O L IN A
D U N C A N H U N T E R , C A LIF O R N IA
D A V ID P . R O E , T E N N E S S E E
G L E N N T H O M P S O N , P E N N S Y L V A N IA
TIM W A L B E R G , M IC H IG A N
S C O T r D E sJA R LA iS . TE N N E S S E E
R IC H A R D L. H A N N A . N E W Y O R K
TO D D R O K IT A , IN D IA N A
C O M M IT T E E O N E D U C A T IO N
A N D TH E W O R K FO R C E
L A R R Y a u csn o N , IN O :A N A
T R E Y G O W D Y , S O U T H C A R O LIN A
LO U B A R I E T T A . P E N N S Y L V A N IA
K 815 riL. N IG Im . S C P IN D A K O T A
M A R N A R O B Y .A LA B A M A
JO S E P H .1. hE C K . N E V A D A
D E N N IS A . R o ss. R O R ID A
M IK E K E L L Y , P E N N S Y L V A N IA
(V a ca n t]
U .S . H O U S E O F R E P R E S E N TA TIV E S
2181 R A Y B U R N H O U S E C O M E B U IL D IN G
W A S H IN G T O N , D C 2 0 5 1 5 -6 1 0 0
D A L E S . K IL D E E . M IC H ;G A N , V isa C h a irm ,
D O N A I [T M . P A Y N E , N E W JE R S E Y
R O B E R T E . A N D R E W S , N E W jE R S E Y
R O B E R T C . "B O B B Y " 51 :1)1 1 . V iR G IN IA
L Y N N C . W O O L S E Y . C A L IF O R M A
R U B E N H IN O JO S A . T E X A S
C A R O L Y N M cC A R T H Y . N E W Y O R K
JO H N F . T IE R N E Y , P A A S S A C IILS E T T S
D E N N IS .1. K U C IN IC H . O H IO
D A V ID W U , O R E G O N
n u s H D . H O LY . N E W JE R S E Y
S U S A N A , D A V IS . C A L IF O R N IA
P A U L M . G R U A L V A , A R IZ O N A
T IM E IT IC Y H . B IS :10P . N eve Y O R K
D A V ID L O E B S A C K , IO W A
M A Z IE K . H IT IO N O , H A W A II
M ay 5,2011
L afe E .Solom on
D ear A cting G eneral C ounsel Solom on:
T he N ational L abor R elations B oard's (N L R B ) recent action against T he B oeing C om pany is deeply
troubling.A lthough the facts of the case are still in dispute,its eventual outcom e could have significant
consequences for job-creators and w orkers ;In light of the potential im pact on the nation's w orkforce,
apparent inconsistencies surrounding the N L R B 's A ril 20, 2011 com plaint m erit further explanation.
A s you are aw are,on M arch 26,2010,the International A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace
W orkers D istrict L odge N o.751 filed a charge w ith the N L R B claim ing B oeing violated sections 8(a)(3)
and 8(a)(1) of the N ational L abor R elations A ct (N L R A ). C entral to the charge is B oeing's decision to
locate a second 787 D ream liner assem bly line in C harleston,South C arolina.T he com plaint references
alleged statem ents m ade by B oeing officials betw een O ctober 2009 and M arch 2010 that w ork stoppages
w ere one reason for choosing the new location.
W hen asked about the charge in June 2010, the N L R B regional director R ichard A hearn told The Seattle
Tim es "it w ould have been an easier case for the union'to argue if B oeing had m oved existing w ork from
E verett, rather than placing new w ork in C harleston." H e w as also unable to point to any "bright line"
rule to determ ine w hether the com pany's actions violated the law . 2Finally, the regional director stated
"an initial ruling is w eeks aw ay." 3
M ore than 10 m onths later on A pril 20, 2011, M r. A hearn issued a com plaint. In contrast to previous
statem ents, he now alleges B oeing "transferred" w ork from W ashington.

4 A ccording to the regional
G ates, D om inic, M achinists .file unfair labor charge against B oeing over Charleston, The S eattle Tim es, June 4, 2010.
A vailable at htto://seattletim es.nw source.com /htm l/businesstechnology/201203 4258 b o e in g 0 5 .h tm l.
Id.
Com plaint and N otice of H earing: The B oeing Com pany and International A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers
D istrictLodge 7.51, C ase 19-C A -32431, P age 5.
3 Id
NLRB-FOIA-00009239
A cting G eneral C ounsel L afe Solom on
M ay 5,2011
Page 2
director,the transfer of the assem bly line in conjunction w ith alleged com m ents m ade by com pany
officials violates the N L R A .5
W hile w e understand that no union em ployee at the PugetSound facility has losthis or her job or been
financially harm ed by w hat appears to be a legitim ate business decision,the N L R B is seeking an
extraordinary rem edy that requires B oeing to relocate its operations across the country.
6 T his w ould have
a detrim ental im pact on the econom y and w orkers of South C arolina,as w ell as have a chilling effect
upon businesses across the country.
T he pivot in position by N L R B officials,as w ell as the unusual tim ing,raises serious concerns that
w arrant congressional inquiry.T o better understand the appropriateness and evolution of this com plaint,
provide the follow ing no later than M ay 19,2011:
1. A description of w hat transpired betw een June 2010 and A pril 2011 that led the N L R B to alter its
opinion in this m atter;
2.
A ll docum ents and com m unications betw een the N L R B R egion 19 office and the N L R B N ational
office addressing the B oeing com plaint;
3.
A ll docum ents and com m unications that support the N L R B 's position that w ork is being
"transferred" in this case; and
4.
Past precedentthat supports a finding that B oeing violated sections 8(a)(3) and 8(a)(1) of the
N L R A w hen it decided to locate,not transfer,a second assem bly line.
T hank you for your cooperation in this m atter.If you have any questions regarding this request,please
contactM arvin K aplan of the C om m ittee staff at(202) 225-7101.
Sincerely,
Jo h rlin e
C h irm an
E ducation and the W orkforce C om m ittee
."'A il R oe,M .D .
C hairm an
Subcom m ittee on H ealth,E m ploym ent,L abor
and Pensions
cc: T he H onorable G eorge M iller,Senior D em ocratic M em ber,E ducation and the W orkforce C om m ittee
cc:T he H onorable R obert A ndrew s,Senior D em ocratic M em ber,Subcom m ittee on H ealth,E m ploym ent,
L abor,and Pensions
5
6
1d. at 6.
1d. at 7-8.
NLRB-FOIA-00009240
M ay 5,2011
Page 3
1. In com plying w ith this request,you should produce all responsive docum ents that are in your
possession,custody,or control,w hether held by you or your past or present agents,em ployees,
and representatives acting on your behalf.Y ou should also produce docum ents that you have a
legal rightto obtain,thatyou have a right to copy or to w hich you have access,as w ell as
docum ents that you have placed in the tem porary possession,custody,or control of any third.
party.R equested records.docum ents,- data or inform ation should notbe destroyed,m odified,.
rem oved,transferred or otherw ise m ade inaccessible to the C om m ittee.
2.
In the eventthat any entity,organization or individual denoted in this requesthas been,or is also
know n by any other nam e than that herein denoted,the request shall be read also to include that
alternative identification.
3. T he C om m ittee's preference is to receive docum ents in electronic form (i.c.,C D ,m em ory stick,
or thum b drive) in lieu of paper productions.
4.
D ocum ents produced in electronic form at should also be organized,identified,and indexed
electronically.
5. E lectronic docum ent productions should be prepared according to the follow ing standards:
(a) T he production should consist of single page T agged Im age File ("TIT"), .files
accom panied by a C oncordance-form at load file,an O pticon reference file,and a file
defining the fields and character lengths of the load file.
(b).D ocum ent num bers in the load file should m atch docum ent B ates num bers and -11F file
nam es.
(c) If the production is com pleted through a series of m ultiple partial productions,field nam es
and file order in all load files should m atch.
6.
D ocum ents produced to the C om m ittee should include an index describing the contents of the
production.T o the extent m ore than one CD,. hard drive,m em ory stick,thum b drive,box or folder
is produced,each CD , hard drive,m em ory stick.thum b drive,box or Iblder should contain an
index describing its contents.
7.
D ocum ents produced in response to this request shall be produced together w ith copies of file
labels.dividers or identifying m arkers w ith w hich they w ere associated w hen they w ere requested.
8.
W hen you produce docum ents,you should identify the paragraph in the C om m ittee's request to
w hich the docum ents respond.
9.
It shall not be a basis for refusal to produce docum ents that any other person or entity also
possesses non-identical or identical copies of the sam e docum ents.
NLRB-FOIA-00009241
M ay 5,2011
Page 4
10.If any of the requested inform ation is only reasonably available in m achine-readable form (such as
on a com puter server,hard drive,or com puter backup tape),you should consult w ith the
C om m ittee staff to determ ine the appropriate Ibrinat in w hich to produce the inform ation.
11.If com pliance w ith the request cannot be m ade in full,com pliance shall be m ade.to the extent
possible and shall include an explanation of w hy full com pliance is not possible.
12.In the event that a docum ent is w ithheld cin the basis of privilege,provide a privilege log
containing the follow ing inform ation concerning any such docum ent: (a) the privilege asserted; (b)
the type of docum ent; (c) the general subject m atter; (d) the date,author and addressee; and (e) the
relationship of the author and addressee to each other.
13.If any docum ent responsive to this request w as,but no longer is,in your possession,custody,.or
control,identify the docum ent (stating its date,author,subject and recipients) and explain the
circum stances under w hich the docum ent ceased to be in your possession,custody,or control.
14.If a date or other descriptive detail setforth in this requestreferring to a .docum ent is inaccurate,
but the actual date or other descriptive detail is know n to you or is otherw ise apparent from the
context of the request,you should produce all docum ents w hich w ould be responsive as if the date
or other descriptive detail w ere correct.
15.T he tim e period covered by this request is included in the attached request.T o the extent a tim e
period is not specified,Produce relevant docum ents from January 1,2009 to the present.
16.This request is continuing in nature and applies to any new ly-discovered inform ation.A ny record,
docum ent,com pilation of data or inform ation,not produced because it has not been located or
discovered by the return date,shall be produced im m ediately upon subsequent location or
discovery.
17.A ll docum ents shall be B ates-stam ped sequentially and produced sequentially.
18.T w o sets of docum ents should be delivered,one set to the M ajority Staff in R oom .2181 of the
R ayburn H ouse O ffice B uilding and one set to the M inority Staff in R oom 2101 of the R ayburn
H ouse O ffice B uilding.
19.U pon com pletion of the docum ent production,you should subm it a w ritten certification,signed by
you or your counsel,stating that: (1) a diligent search has been com pleted of all docum ents in your
possession,custody,or control w hich reasonably could contain responsive docum ents; and (2) all
docum ents located during the search that are responsive have been produced to the C om m itte:e.
NLRB-FOIA-00009242
M ay 5,2011
Page 5
D efinitions
1.T he term "docum ent" m eans any w ritten,recorded,or graphic m atter of any nature w hatsoever,
regardless of how recorded,and w hether original or copy.including,but not lim ited to,the
follow ing: m em oranda,reports,expense reports.books,m anuals,instructions,financial reports.
w orking papers,records,notes,letters,notices,confirm ations.,telegram s,receipts,appraisals;
pam phlets,m agazines,new spapers,prospectuses,inter-office and intra-office com m nnications,
electronic m ail (e-m ail),contracts,cables,notations of any type of cobversation,telephone call,
m eeting or other com m unication,bulletins,printed m atter,com puter printouts,teletypes,invO ices,
transcripts,diaries,analyses,returns,sum m aries,m inutes,bills,accounts,estim ates,projections,
com parisons,m essages,correspondence,press releases,circulars,financial statem ents,review s,
opinions,offers,studies and investigations,questionnaires and Surveys,and w ork sheets (and all
drafts,prelim inary versions,alterations,m odifications,revisions,changes,and am endm ents of any
of the foregoing,as w ell as any attachm ents or appendices thereto),and graphic or oral records or
representations of any kind (including w ithout lim itation,photographs,charts,graphs,m icrofiche,
'm icrofilm ,videotape,recordings and m otion pictures),and electronic,m echanical,and electric
records or representations of any kind (including,w ithout lim itation,tapes,cassettes,disks,and
recordings) and other w ritten,printed,typed,or other graphic or recorded m atter of any kind or
nature,how ever produced or reproduced,and w hether preserved in w riting,film ,tape,disk,
videotape or otherw ise.A docum ent bearing any notation not a part of the original text is to be
considered a separate docum ent.A draft or non-identical copy is a separate docum ent w ithin the
m eaning of this term .
2.T he term "com m unication" m eans each m anner or m eans of disclosure or exchange of
inform ation,regardless of m eans utilized,w hether oral,electronic,by docum ent or otherw ise,and
w hether in a m eeting,by telephone.facsim ile,em ail,regular m ail,telexes,releases,or otherw ise.
3.T he term s "and" and "or" shall be construed broadly and either conjunctively or disjunctively to
bring w ithin the scope of this request any inform ation w hich m ight otherw ise be construed to be
outside its scope.T he singular includes plural num ber,and vice versa.T he m asculine includes the
fem inine and neuter genders.
4.T he term s "person" or "persons" m ean natural persons.firm s,partnerships,associations,
corporations,subsidiaries,divisions,departm ents,joint ventures,proprietorships,syndicates,or
other legal,business or governm ent entities,and all subsidiaries,affiliates,divisions,departm ents,
branches,or other units.thereof.
5.
T he term "identify," w hen used in a question about individuals,m eans to provide the follow ing
inform ation: (a) the individual's com plete nam e and title; and (b) the individual's business address
and phone num ber.
6.
T he term "referring or relating," w ith respect to any given subject,m eans anything that constitutes,
contains,em bodies,reflect s,identifies,states,refers to,deals w ith or is pertinent to that subject in
any m anner w hatsoever.
NLRB-FOIA-00009243
IM IIM A S
A 1..i.
A I:IA N . :A ...V
P :IL Y A :4J
rM A il
Z !....
(:A } .1 .1 .. In :IIN S Y L V A N IA
riA .G .V .i.N O R
cA N kirin
OCILTII..11
tur.04.
v E v al,..T.C IA
AIM ::
W u,
!.
k rn i o ci ;
()M A W .4 1 : E te. 1 .1 A ll
.1 n r!N
-A N ; ..{S 17C .N :r.
IN A
f.:S r
:W I III. S I A f.i.
D IIII.l' 11.111
S T A rr
/e..51er
I:1 1 4 r,
'U nited eStates Zen=
C O M M IT T E E O N H E A L T H . E D U C A T IO N ,
L A B O R . A N D P E N S IO N S
W A S H IN G T O N , D C 2 0 5 1 0 -6 3 0 0
on
M ay 3, 2011
M r.Lafe S olom on
O ffice of the G eneral C ounsel
1099 14th S t.N W
D ear M r.S olom on:
W e are w riting to express our strong concerns about your A pril20 th

com plaint filed
against The B oeing C om pany.The com plaint alleged that B oeing's decision to open a
new production line for construction in S outh C arolina constituted an unfair labor
practice.W e stronglydisagree.A nd,.w e are troubled, about the chilling effect that your
action m ay have on business decisions across the country..
W e have a duty to ensure that the N ationalLabor R elations A ct ("the A ct") is being
enforced in a fair m anner.In this and other decisions,w e believe that you have ignored
the proper balance set forth in the A ct betw een the em ployees'right to collectively
bargain and the em ployers'right to due process.W e question the legal reasoning and
m otive behind the com plaint,as w ellas the proposed rem edy to force B oeing to m ove
its additionalproduction line to W ashington S tate.
It is clear that B oeing's legitim ate business decision had no adverse im pact on the
P uget S ound w orkforce indeed,2,000 additionaljobs have been 'created there since
2009.U nder w ell-established precedent, em ployers m ay consider m itigating the im pact
of strikes as a business objective.G iven the m ultitude of U .S .industries dependent on
the product forthcom ing from this production line,the desire to ensure continuity of
operations is only logical.
W e are also concerned about the tim ing of your announcem ent.B oeing announced its
decision to open an additionalproduction line in S outh C arolina in O ctober 2009.
H ow ever,your office w aited untilA pril2011 to file-the com plaint,just three m onths
before the new production line is scheduled to begin in July 2011.This com plaint has
the potentialto elim inate thousands of new ly created and w ell-com pensated jobs in
S outh C arolina.It w ill have a negative effect on im portant decisions m ade by A m erican
businesses every day regarding w ho to em ploy and w here to expand, and negate the
NLRB-FOIA-00009244
ability of states to attract established U .S.em ployers by providing financialincentives
and w elcom ing business clim ates.
In today's econom y m ost U .S.businesses,including B oeing,are com peting on an
internationalscale.P resident O bam a appears tO have recognized that fact,stating in a
January 2011 speech about A m erica's com petitiveness,that,"O ur challenge is to do
everything w e can to m ake it easier for folks to bring products to m arket and to start and
expand new businesses and to grow and hire new viibrkers." W e agree w ith the
P resident.A nd,that is w hy w e are so deeply troubled by your decision regarding
B oeing's busineSs operations.
W hile w e understand the com plaint process is stillin the early stages,there is a need
,/for the B oard to explain the reasoning in this case to C ongress.A s your nom ination is
brought before our C om m ittee,w e w illbe asking for a greater explanation of your
actions.
.
Sincerely;
1-.40vravt.i A l-c,x0A rate,A
S enator M ichaelB .E ffii
S enator Lam ar A lexander
S enator R ichard B urr
S enator Johnny lsakson
S enator R and P aul
S enator O rrin G .H atch
Senator John-M cC ain
Senatcir Pat R oberts
Senator Lisa M urkow ski
S enator M ark K irk
NLRB-FOIA-00009245
R E G IO N 19
C ase 19-C A -32431
and
w ith
W O R K ER S
A N SW E R
C ounsel of the N ational L abor R elations B oard ("N L R B "),states as follow s:
violated the N ational L abor R elations A ct ("N L R A ") in any of the m anners alleged in the
the C om plaint to w hich no responsive pleading is required shall be deem ed as denied.B oeing
NLRB-FOIA-00009246
D E FE N S E S
W ithout assum ing any burden of proof, persuasion or production not otherw ise legally
assigned to it as to any elem ent of the claim s alleged in the C om plaint, B oeing asserts the
I.
T he C om plaint and each purported claim for relief stated therein fail to allege
2.
T he statem ents cited in P aragraphs 6(a)-6(e) of the C om plaint are protected
statem ents under S ection 8(c) of the N L R A and under the F irst A m endm ent to the U nited S tates
3.
based upon a num ber of varied factors, including a favorable business environm ent in S outh
C arolina for m anufacturing com panies like B oeing; significant financial incentives from the
S tate of S outh C arolina; achieving geographic diversity of its com m ercial airline operations; as
w ell as to protect the stability of the 787's global production system . In any event, even
ascribing an intent to B oeing that it placed the second line in N orth C harleston so as to M itigate
the harm ful econom ic effects of an anticipated future strike w ould not be evidence that the
the IA M for past strikes. N evertheless, B oeing w ould have m ade the sam e decisions w ith
4.
transfer of w ork, w hich allegations B oeing expressly denies, the International A ssociation of
M achinists and A erospace W orkers D istrict L odge 751, affiliated w ith International A ssociation
NLRB-FOIA-00009247
5.
B oeing has notviolated Section 8(a)(3) of the N LR A as ithas notdiscrim inated in
the hire,w ages,tenure,or term s or conditions of em ploym entof any U nit.m em ber.
6.
B oeing's alleged conductw as notinherently destructive of em ployees'rights
under the N LR A because, inter alia,in its collective bargaining agreem entw ith B oeing,the IA M
expressly agreed thatB oeing has the rightto place w ork in any location of its choice w ithoutthe
need to bargain w ith the IA M ,and because an intentto m itigate the adverse econom ic im pactof
an anticipated future strike is notinherently destructive of protected em ployee rights under the
N LR A .
7.
B oeing has notviolated Section 8(a)(1) of the N LR A as ithas notinterfered w ith,
restrained,or coerced em ployees represented by the [A M in the exercise of their rights protected
by the N LR A .
8.
The rem edy requested in the C om plaintis im perm issibly punitive and w ould
W ashington.
9.
The rem edy requested in Paragraph 13(a) of the C om plaintis im perm issibly
from currentB oard and courtprecedent.
10.
The rem edy requested in Paragraph 12 of the C om plaintis im proper because
B oeing has notviolated Section 8(a)(1) of the N LR A .
NLRB-FOIA-00009248
The rem edy requested in Paragraph 13(a) of the C om plaintis im perm issible
11.
because itdoes notseek a restoration of the status quo.
12.
13.
Som e or allof the claim s asserted in the C om plaintare barred by the six m onth
statute of lim itations setforth in Section 10(b) of the N LR A .
14.
The C om plaintis ultra vires because the A cting G eneralC ounselof the N LR B
did notlaw fully hold the office of A cting G eneralC ounselatthe tim e he directed thatthe
C om plaintbe filed.
A N D N O W ,incorporating the foregoing,B oeing states as follow s in response,to the
Pream ble:B oeing denies the allegations contained in the pream ble,exceptto adm itthat
D istrictLodge 751,affiliated w ith the InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and A erospace
W orkers ("1A M ") has charged in case 19-C A -32431 thatB oeing has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices prohibited by the N LR A ,and thatthe A cting G eneralC ounselof the N LR B has
issued this C om plaintand N otice of H earing based upon the IA M 's charge.
1.
B oeing lacks inform ation and know ledge sufficientto form a belief as to the
allegations of Paragraph 1,exceptto adm itthat,on or around M arch 29,2010,itreceived by
2.
NLRB-FOIA-00009249
(b) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 2(b),exceptto adm itthatin the
lasttw elve m onths its business operations resulted in gross revenues in excess of $500,000.
(c) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 2(c),exceptto adm itthatduring
the lasttw elve m onths itreceived,shipped,sold and/or purchase goods atits facilities in the
State-of W ashington valued in excess of $50,000 from places outside of the State of W ashington.
(d) B oeing denies the allegations of Paragraph 2(d),exceptto adm itthatitis and
3.
B oeing adm its the allegations of Paragraph 3.
4.
The firstsentence of Paragraph 4 states legalconclusions for w hich no answ er is
required.A s to the rem aining allegations in Paragraph 4,B oeing adm its thatthe
Jam es ("Jim ") F.A lbaugh:Executive V ice President,The B oeing C om pany;
C hief Executive O fficer,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes
ScottC arson:E xecutive V ice President,T he B oeing C om pany;C hief
Executive O fficer,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes (untilA ugust2009)
R aym ond L.C onner:V ice Presidentand G eneralM anager of Supply C hain
M anagem entand O perations,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes
ScottFancher:V ice Presidentand G eneralM anager,B oeing 787 D ream liner
Program ,B oeing C om m ercialA irplanes
Frederick C .K i6:V ice President,State and L ocalG overnm entR elations and
G lobalC orporate C itizenship for the N orthw estR egion,B oeing C om m ercial
A irplanes
NLRB-FOIA-00009250

D ouglas P . K ight: V ice P resident, H um an R esources, B oeing C om m ercial
A irplanes
. W . Jam es ("Jim ") M cN ern ey , Jr.: C h airm an o f th e B o ard , P resid en t, an d
C hief E xecutive O fficer, T he B oeing C om pany
Jam es P roulx: M anager, B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes N ew s and M edia
P atrick ("P at") S hanahan: V ide P resident and G eneral M anager .,A irplane
P rogram s, B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes
E ugene W oloshyn: V ice P resident, L abor R elations, T he B oeing C om pany
5.
(a) T he allegations contained in P aragraph 5(a) state legal conclusions for w hich
no response is required, but to the extent a response is required, B oeing adm its that the
production and m aintenance em ployees in W ashington S tate constituted a "U nit" for collective
(b)
T he allegations contained in P aragraph 5(b) state legal conclusions for w hich
no response is required, but to the extent a response is required, B oeing adm its that the
production and m aintenance em ployees in the P ortland, O regon area constitute a "U nit" for
(c)
B oeing adm its the allegations of P aragraph 5(c).
(d)
B oeing adm its the allegations of P aragraph 5(d).
6.
B oeing denies the introductory sentence to P aragraph 6, and specifically denies
that, it "rem oved" or "had rem oved w ork" from its facilities in E verett, W ashington or P ortland,
O regon because U nit em ployees had struck B oeing, and also specifically denies that it threatened
or im pliedly threatened that those facilities w ould lose additional w ork in the event of future U nit
strikes. A s to the lettered subparagraphs:
NLRB-FOIA-00009251
's
(a) B oeing denies the allegations of P aragraph 6(a), except to adm it that its
P resident, C hairm an and C E O Jam es M cN erney, participated in an earnings conference call on
O ctober 21, 2009; and B oeing specifically denies that M r. M cN erney m ade an "extended
statem ent" or any statem ent about m oving 787 D ream liner w ork to S outh C arolina due to
"strikes happening every three or four years in P uget S ound." B oeing adm its that the referenced
(b)
B oeing denies the allegations of P aragraph 6(b), and further states that the
referenced O ctober 28, 2009 m em orandum speaks for itself.
(c)
B oeing denies the allegations of P aragraph 6(c), except to adm it that the .
referenced new spaper article appeared in The Seattle Tim es on D ecem ber 7, 2009.
(d)
B oeing denies the allegations of P aragraph 6(d), except to adm it that the
referenced new spaper article appeared in The PugetSound Business Journal on D ecem ber 8,
2009.
(e)
B oeing denies the allegations of P aragraph 6(e), except to adm it that a S eattle
T im es reporter conducted a video-taped interview of M r. A lbaugh and that the tape speaks for
itself.
7.
(a) B oeing denies the allegations of P aragraph 7(a), and specifically denies that it
transferred the "second 787 D ream liner" assem bly line from its facility in E verett, W ashington to
a facility to be constructed in N orth C harleston, S outh C arolina, and except to state that on
O ctober 28, 2009, B oeing announced that it w ould place a new second assem bly line for the 787
D ream liner in N orth C harleston, S outh C arolina.
(b)
B oeing denies the allegations of P aragraph 7(b).
(c)
B oeing denies the allegations of P aragraph 7(c).
NLRB-FOIA-00009252
8.
(a) B oeing denies the allegations of P aragraph 8(a), and specifically denies that it
P ortland, O regon to N orth C harleston, S outh C arolina.
(b)
B oeing denies the allegations of P aragraph 8(b).
(c)
B oeing denies the allegations of P aragraph 8(c).
9.
B oeing denies the allegations contained in P aragraph 9.
10.
B oeing denies the allegations contained P aragraph 10.
11.
B oeing denies the allegations contained in P aragraph 11.
12.
P aragraph 12 does not allege facts for w hich an answ er is required, but relates the
rem edy sought by the A cting G eneral C ounsel and, accordingly, no response is required.
H ow ever, to the extent that a response m ay be deem ed to be necessary, B oeing denies that the
A cting G eneral C ounsel is entitled to, or that the B oard can order the rem edy requested in
P aragraph 12.
13.
(a) P aragraph 13(a) does not allege facts for w hich an answ er is required, but
relates the rem edy sought by the A cting G eneral C ounsel and, accordingly, no response is
required. H ow ever, to the extent that a response m ay be deem ed to be necessary, B oeing denies
that the A cting G eneral C ounsel is entitled to the rem edy, or that the B oard can order the rem edy
requested in P aragraph 13(a).
(b) P aragraph 13(b) does not allege facts for w hich an answ er is required but
m erely describes w hat the A cting G eneral C ounsel says is not part of the rem edy he is seeking.
T o the extent that a response m ay be deem ed to be necessary, B oeing denies that the A cting
G eneral C ounsel has correctly stated that the rem edy sought in P aragraph 13(a) w ill not
NLRB-FOIA-00009253
D ated:M ay 4,2011
W illiam J.K fK erg P.C .
GIBSO N ,D U N N & C R U TC H ER LLP
T elephone:202.955.8500
Facsim ile:202.467.0539
R ichard B.H ankins
M C K EN N A LO N G & A LD R ID GE
T elephone: 404.527-4000
Facsim ile: 404.527-4198
NLRB-FOIA-00009254
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER IC A
R EGIO N 19
C ase 19-C A -32431
and
W O R K ER S D ISTR IC T LO D GE 751,affiliated
w ith
W O R K ER S
I certify thatacopy ofR espondent's A nsw er w as electronically served on M ay 4,2011
R ichard L.A hearn
R egionalD irector
915 Second A venue '
C ounselfor the A cting GeneralC ounsel
10
NLRB-FOIA-00009255
D avid C am pbell
C arson Glickm an-Flora
SC H W ER IN C A M PBELL BA R N A R D IGLITZIN & LA V ITT LLP
C ounselfor IA M
D A TED this 4th day ofM ay,2011
inierr.D avis
GIBSO N ,D U N N & C R U TC H ER LLP
D D avis@ Gibsondunn.com
NLRB-FOIA-00009256

NLRB Production 10

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

NLRB Production 10

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Microsoft Outlook

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:19 AM

Ahearn, Richard L.; Cleeland, Nancy

Boeing draft press release

Ex. 5 deliberative strategy

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:28 AM

RE: Boeing draft press release

From: Abruzzo, Jennifer

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:19 AM

Ahearn, Richard L.; Cleeland, Nancy

Subject: Boeing draft press release

complaint, which I havent seen yet.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:39 AM

RE: Boeing draft press release

I've attached one where I've bolded the changes.

Can you see them in bold?

From: Cleeland, Nancy

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:28 AM

To: Abruzzo, Jennifer

Subject: RE: Boeing draft press release

From: Abruzzo, Jennifer

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:19 AM

Ahearn, Richard L.; Cleeland, Nancy

Subject: Boeing draft press release

complaint, which I havent seen yet.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:47 AM

RE: Boeing draft press release

I'm fine with almost all of these but

From: Abruzzo, Jennifer

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:38 AM

To: Cleeland, Nancy

Subject: RE: Boeing draft press release

I've attached one where I've bolded the changes.

Can you see them in bold?

From: Cleeland, Nancy

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:28 AM

To: Abruzzo, Jennifer

Subject: RE: Boeing draft press release

From: Abruzzo, Jennifer

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:19 AM

Ahearn, Richard L.; Cleeland, Nancy

Subject: Boeing draft press release

complaint, which I havent seen yet.

W ednesday, April 20, 2011 7:47 AM

RE: Draft for submission to Advice

From: Cleeland, Nancy

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 2:20 PM

Lafe E.; Garza, Jose

Subject: RE: Draft for submission to Advice

if Jose could join too.

I need help with one area in particular:

NLRB Director of Public Affairs

From: Ahearn, Richard L.

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 11:38 AM

L; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.

Cc: Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise

Subject: FW: Draft for submission to Advice

Barry. Please see suggested

W ednesday, April 20, 2011 8:36 AM

Sophir, Jayme; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; W agner, Anthony R.

latest news release

Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:48 PM

Draft response to Luttig