NLRB Production 11

Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Monday, April 18, 2011 3:44 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina,
Celeste J.
new draft
Boeingrelease.doc
Thanks for all your suggestions. Here is the latest draft of the release. Feel free to make suggestions, particularly
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-00009257
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009258
Microsoft Outlook
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Mattina,
Celeste J.
Re: new draft
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
From: Abruzzo, Jennifer
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Mattina, Celeste J.
Sent: Mon Apr 18 16:16:20 2011
Subject: Re: new draft
Sorry, I'm on my BB, a few suggestions:
The paragraph starting with
Exemption 5
In the paragraph starting with

--------------------------
Exemption 5
From: Cleeland, Nancy
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Mattina, Celeste J.
Sent: Mon Apr 18 15:44:07 2011
Subject: new draft
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009259
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:15 AM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Abruzzo,
Jennifer
RE: new draft
Should we add also,

Exemption 5
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:44 PM
Subject: new draft
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009260
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Mattina, Celeste J.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme;
Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE: new draft
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
________________________________________
From: Mattina, Celeste J.
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:14 AM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme;
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Subject: RE: new draft
Should we add also,

Exemption 5
________________________________
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Abruzzo, Jennifer;
Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: new draft
Thanks for all your suggestions. Here is the latest draft of the release. Feel free to make
suggestions, particularly
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009261
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Abruzzo,
Jennifer
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: new draft
Sorry to jump in after the fact.
What do you think,
Exemption 5
-----Original Message-----
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme;
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
________________________________________
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Should we add also,

Exemption 5
________________________________
Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: new draft
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB-FOIA-00009262
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009263
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Mattina, Celeste J.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme;
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: new draft
Hi all, It would be very helpful to see a draft of the complaint for purposes of writing the
fact sheet. Could someone forward to me? Thanks ________________________________________
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Cc: Ahearn, Richard L.
What do you think,
Exemption 5
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
________________________________________
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Should we add also,

Exemption 5
________________________________
Mattina, Celeste J.
NLRB-FOIA-00009264
Subject: new draft
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009265
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Cleeland, Nancy; Mattina, Celeste J.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen;
Sophir, Jayme; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Re: new draft
I will shortly; a couple tweaks remain.
Rich
--------------------------
----- Original Message -----
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Sent: Tue Apr 19 10:29:49 2011
Abruzzo, Jennifer
What do you think,
Exemption 5
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00009266
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Should we add also,

Exemption 5
________________________________
Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: new draft
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009267
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Cleeland, Nancy
Sent:
Tuesday, April 19, 2011 1:56 PM
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen;
Subject:
part of fact sheet
Sophir, Jayme; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Hi everyone,
I'm working on the fact sheet and am struggling to condense the case law mentioned in the Advice memo
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009268
NLRB-FOIA-00009269
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Cleeland, Nancy
Sent:
Wednesday, April 20, 2011 9:50 AM
To:
Mattina, Celeste J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Kearney, Barry J.;
Cc:
Cleeland, Nancy
Subject:
fact sheet
Attachments:
NLRB Fact Sheet.doc
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Solomon, Lafe E.
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-00009270
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009271
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009272
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009273
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:07 PM
Schiff, Robert; Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
Kearney, Barry J.
FW : Boeing -- revised draft response to state AGs
AGs letter.pdf; GC Response to State AG's.doc
Barry and his people drafted a very good response. I made some minor edits; I
Exemption 5
From: Kearney, Barry J.
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 2:28 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: FW: Boeing -- revised draft response to state AGs
Draft response from you to State AGs
From: Willen, Debra L
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Farrell, Ellen; Szapiro, Miriam
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Subject: RE: Boeing -- revised draft response to state AGs
clean draft and AGs' letter attached
To: Sophir, Jayme; Farrell, Ellen; Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
I agree with all the revisions. Please send me a clean draft along with the AG letter to send on to Lafe
From: Sophir, Jayme
To: Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Notwithstanding that this case is about retaliation for striking in other states, they seem
Exemption 5
But, regardless of what theyre saying, Ellens
modification is definitely better.
From: Farrell, Ellen
NLRB-FOIA-00009274
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Willen, Debra L; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Division of Advice, NLRB
202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
From: Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 11:33 AM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Subject: Boeing -- revised draft response to state AGs
As Barry requested, I've incorporated his changes and am attaching the new version along with the AG's letter.
Jayme -- I have not addressed your concern -- please discuss it with Barry and let me know if what you all want me to
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00009275
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009276
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009277
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009278
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Lafe E. Solomon, Esquire
Acting General Counsel
National Labor Relations Board
1099 14 th Street, NW, Suite 8600
Washington, DC 20570
Dear Mr. Solomon:
As Attorneys General of our respective states, we call upon you, as Acting General
Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), to withdraw immediately the
complaint numbered 19-CA-32431 against Boeing. This complaint represents an assault upon the
constitutional right of free speech, and the ability of our states to create jobs and recruit industry.
Your ill-conceived retaliatory action seeks to destroy our citizens right to work. It is South
Carolina and Boeing today, but will be any of our states, with our right to work guarantees,
tomorrow.
The right to work, uninhibited by compulsory unionism, is a precious right and is
constitutionally enforceable through our states right to work laws. See Retail Clerks Intl v.
Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 96 (1963). Such laws are designed to eliminate union affiliation as a
criterion for employment. However, the NLRB, through this single proceeding, attempts to
sound the death knell of the right to work. Additionally, this tenuous complaint will reverberate
throughout union and non-union states alike, as international companies will question the
wisdom of locating in a country where the federal government interferes in industry without
cause or justification.
Furthermore, this complaint disrupts, and may well eliminate, the production of Boeing
787 Dreamliners in South Carolina. In fact, Boeing has expanded its operations to meet product
demand in South Carolina, while adding new jobs in Washington State. The complaint charges
Boeing with the commission of an unfair labor practice, but appears to do so without legal and
factual foundation. This unparalleled and overreaching action seeks to drive a stake through the
heart of the free enterprise system. The statements of Boeing officials cited in your complaint are
the innocent exercise of the companys right of free speech. The Supreme Court long ago made
it clear that the NLRA does not limit, and the First Amendment protects, the employer's right to
express views on labor policies or problems. N.L.R.B. v. Va. Electric and Power, 314 US 469,
NLRB-FOIA-00009279
Hon. Lafe E. Solomon
April 27, 2011
Page 2
477 (1941). As the Court recently reiterated in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 899-90
(2010), a corporation is not a second class citizen in terms of First Amendment protection.
Our states are struggling to emerge from one of the worst economic collapses since the
Depression. Your complaint further impairs an economic recovery. Intrusion by the federal
bureaucracy on behalf of unions will not create a single new job or put one unemployed person
back to work.
The only justification for the NLRBs unprecedented retaliatory action is to aid union
survival. Your action seriously undermines our citizens right to work as well as their ability to
compete globally. Therefore, as Attorneys General, we will protect our citizens from union
bullying and federal coercion. We thus call upon you to cease this attack on our right to work,
our states economies, and our jobs.
We look forward to your immediate response.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
[Signatures continue next page]
Cc: Respective Congressional Delegations
NLRB-FOIA-00009280
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Commonwealth of Virginia
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00009281
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Mattina, Celeste J.; Schiff, Robert; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
Kearney, Barry J.
RE: Boeing -- revised draft response to state AGs
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:07 PM
To: Schiff, Robert; Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc: Kearney, Barry J.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00009282
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00009283
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy; Mattina, Celeste J.; Schiff, Robert; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
Kearney, Barry J.
To the extent it is possible, I think it would be best to have this conversation in person.
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Schiff, Robert; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00009284
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00009285
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00009286
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011 9:55 AM
Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
We have no record of having sent this response out and I seem to recall
Exemption 5
I am just sending this message out
in case somebody has a different recollection, although I am pretty sure this is what
happened.
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 9:11 AM
To: MotonBostick, Sylvia; Contee, Ernestine R.
I am pretty sure we decided not to send this response, but can you please check and
get back to me on this? Thank you!
To: Mattina, Celeste J.
Heres both the AGs letter and our draft response
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
NLRB-FOIA-00009287
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
NLRB-FOIA-00009288
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00009289
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009290
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009291
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009292
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Solomon:
tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00009293
April 27, 2011
Page 2
back to work.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
NLRB-FOIA-00009294
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00009295
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Graham, David
Friday, June 10, 2011 10:47 AM
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Statement of W ork
Legal Services SOW 061011.doc
Jennifer,
Attached is the draft SOW . Please review and suggest any changes at all. Please understand Im not an attorney, so
dont be shy about any suggestions since you understand the legal profession much better than I. I also sent it to Joe
Davis and Kathy James, who is an outstanding writer, for review. Delfina is the contracting officer because I have to free
myself up for approvals required above the contracting officer.
I am writing the sole source justification next and will provide it to you for signature.
NLRB-FOIA-00009296
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009297
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009298
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009299
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Graham, David; James, Kathleen
FW : Statement of W ork
See attached. Ive made a few changes, i.e.

. Thanks.
Exemption 5
From: Graham, David
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 10:47 AM
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer
Subject: Statement of Work
Jennifer,
dont be shy about any suggestions since you understand the legal profession much better than I. I also sent it to Joe
Davis and Kathy James, who is an outstanding writer, for review.
Delfina is the contracting officer because I have to free
NLRB-FOIA-00009300
STATEMENT OF WORK
LEGAL SERVICES
BACKGROUND
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is an independent Federal Agency created by
Congress in 1935 to administer the National Labor Relations Act, the primary law governing
relations between and among unions, employees, and employers in the private sector. The
statute guarantees the right of employees to organize and to bargain collectively with their
employers or to refrain from all such activity. Generally applying to all employers involved in
interstate commerce other than airlines, railroads, agriculture, and government the Act
implements the national labor policy of assuring free choice and encouraging collective
bargaining as a means of maintaining industrial peace. Through the years, Congress has
amended the Act and the Board and courts have developed a body of law drawn from the statute.
In its statutory assignment, the NLRB has two principal functions: (1) to determine, through
secret-ballot elections, the free democratic choice by employees whether they wish to be
represented by a union in dealing with their employers and if so, by which union; and (2) to
prevent and remedy unlawful acts, called unfair labor practices, by either employers or unions.
The NLRB does not act on its own motion in either function. It processes only those charges of
unfair labor practices and petitions for employee elections that are filed with the NLRB in one of
its fifty-two Regional, Sub-regional, or Resident Offices.
PURPOSE
The NLRB is in need of independent counsel (contractor) to advise and represent the General
Counsel and/or the NLRB on any and all matters in relation to activities regarding Congressional
inquiries and testimony. Contractor shall provide legal services, as needed, to support and
protect the interests of the General Counsel and the NLRB. Contractor must have specialized
experience in all related matters of law.
Legal services may include, but are not limited to, the
following subject areas and similar related work:
(1) Legal advice about Congressional inquiries and about testifying before a Congressional
Committee and/or Subcommittee;
(2) Assistance in drafting documents in response to Congressional inquiries, including
talking points for oral presentation;
(3) Representation as legal counsel during any Congressional testimony or questioning, and
advance preparation for such matters as needed to represent the interests of the General
Counsel and the NLRB;
(4) Any area of legal expertise or support that may arise due to the nature of this contract for
legal services.
SOW: NxGen Advisory Services
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009301
COMMUNICATIONS:
Contractor shall be accessible by telephone at all times or as necessary under the terms of this
contract. Contractor shall have capacity to submit and receive documents to and from the NLRB
in Microsoft Word 2003 format and/or pdf. file format as required. All communications shall be
secure from disclosure to any outside sources. All secure communications shall be protected
under attorney-client privilege and shall be marked as such when necessary to protect the
interests of the NLRB.
EXPENSES:
The NLRB agrees to reimburse contractor for reasonable expenses allocable to and necessary for
legal services within the scope of this contract, and allowable under the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (48 CFR Part 31). Expenses may include, but are not limited to photocopying, long
distance telephone charges, travel, computerized legal research, messenger services and mailing
expenses, investigators, secretarial overtime as necessary for timeliness matters.
All travel, including transportation, lodging, meals and incidental expenses shall be in
accordance with the Federal Travel Regulation, and may be based on actual expenses, Federal
per diem rates including IRS reimbursement rates, or any combination thereof, provided the
method used results in a reasonable charge.
Costs incurred for transportation may be based on
mileage rates, actual costs incurred, or a combination provided the method used results in a
reasonable charge. Air travel shall be at the lowest available rates at the time of travel. Any
charges in question may be brought to the attention of the Contracting Officer for advisement
and approval.
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
The period of performance shall be from date of award up to one calendar year from date of
award.
POINTS OF CONTACT
Jennifer Abruzzo, Deputy Assistant General Counsel shall be the point of contact for all
technical information and questions. In this capacity, she will monitor the performance of the
contract on behalf of the Government. The POC is located at National Labor Relations Board,
1099 14
th
Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20570, Suite 10102. The telephone number is 202-273-
3704.
Delfina St. Clair, Contracting Officer, shall be the Contracting Officer for award and
administration of this contract. The Contacting Officer or designee is the sole authority for
authorizing changes to this contract. The Contracting Officer is located at National Labor
th
Relations Board, 1099 14

Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20570, Suite 7750. The telephone
number is 202-273-4210.
INVOICES AND PAYMENT
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009302
In compliance with the Prompt Payment Act, invoices shall be paid within 30 days of receiving a
proper invoice, and pays interest at established Treasury rates on all late payments.
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009303
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Graham, David
Friday, June 10, 2011 12:01 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Davis, Joseph M.; James, Kathleen
RE: Statement of W ork
JOFOC Boeing Legal Svcs.htm
Yes, it looks good.
Exemption 5
Attached is the Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition for your signature. Let me know if you
prefer any changes here as well.
To: Graham, David; James, Kathleen
Subject: FW: Statement of Work
See attached. Ive made a few changes, i.e.

. Thanks.
Exemption 5
From: Graham, David
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer
Subject: Statement of Work
Jennifer,
dont be shy about any suggestions since you understand the legal profession much better than I.
Davis and Kathy James, who is an outstanding writer, for review.
I also sent it to Joe
Delfina is the contracting officer because I have to free
NLRB-FOIA-00009304
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009305
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009306
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009307
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009308
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009309
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009310
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009311
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Mattina, Celeste J.
See attached edited version of SOW.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009312
Exemption 5
Give a call or stop by if we need to further discuss.
NLRB-FOIA-00009313
STATEMENT OF WORK
LEGAL SERVICES
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE
Counsel and the NLRB on any and all matters in relation to activities regarding Congressional
legal services.
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009314
COMMUNICATIONS:
EXPENSES:
and approval.
award.
POINTS OF CONTACT
1099 14
th
3704.
th

number is 202-273-4210.
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009315
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009316
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Graham, David
Abruzzo, Jennifer; James, Kathleen
Mattina, Celeste J.
This looks fine. I see
Exemption 5
Ill send
the final edition back for signature.
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2011 12:41 PM
Cc: Mattina, Celeste J.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009317
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009318
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Mattina, Celeste J.
Thanks.
From: Graham, David
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer; James, Kathleen
Subject: RE: Statement of Work
This looks fine. I see

Exemption 5
Ill send
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009319
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009320
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Graham, David
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Mattina, Celeste J.; James, Kathleen
JOFOC Boeing Legal Svcs.htm.doc
Jennifer, attached is the Justification with your changes. Please sign and return. Thanks
Thanks.
From: Graham, David
To: Abruzzo, Jennifer; James, Kathleen
This looks fine.
Exemption 5
Ill send
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009321
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009322
JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
In accordance with FAR 6.303, each Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition shall contain
sufficient facts and rationale to justify the use of the specific authority cited. As a minimum, each
justification shall include the following information, and be approved in accordance with FAR 6.304.
(1) Identification of the agency and the contracting activity, and specific identification of the
document as a Justification for other than full and open competition.
Program Office - National Labor Relations Board, Operations Division
Contracting Office Acquisitions Management Branch
(2) Nature and/or description of the action being approved.
Independent Counsel is needed for legal services to advise and represent the General Counsel and the
NLRB on any and all matters in relation to activities regarding Congressional inquiries and testimony.
(3) A description of the supplies or services required to meet the agencys needs (including the
estimated value).
Legal services may include preparation for and representation at Congressional hearings or
questioning, reviewing and drafting documents, legal research and review, copying, travel, or other
administrative expenses. No purchase of supplies is anticipated.
(4) An identification of the statutory authority permitting other than full and open competition.
41USC 253(c) and 10 USC 2304 (c).
(5) A demonstration that the proposed contractors unique qualifications or the nature of the
acquisition requires use of the authority cited.
Contractor has skills and experience in specific matters related to legal services in connection with
congressional hearings of the type needed for this contract action.
Authority to contract with
independent counsel is illustrated in Comp. Gen. 194496 1984, B-210518.
(6) A description of efforts made to ensure that offers are solicited from as many potential sources as
is practicable, including whether a notice was or will be publicized as required by Subpart 5.2 and, if
not, which exception under 5.202 applies.
This is an unusual and compelling urgency since there is an immediate need for advice about
Congressional inquiries and about testimony before Congressional Committees and Subcommittees.
This is not a typical situation where any firm has the experience and expertise to advise on this type
of matter. The law firm was located through contacts with the knowledge of the firms
qualifications. There is no time to advertise.
(7) A determination that the anticipated cost to the Government will be fair and reasonable.
The price is based on established rates and is determined to be fair and reasonable for the services
rendered. The estimate is established through discussions with the firm, and a not-to-exceed (NTE)
amount will protect the Government, where the Contracting Officer must authorized amounts above
the NTE amount
NLRB-FOIA-00009323
(8) A description of the market research conducted (see Part 10) and the results or a statement of the
reason market research was not conducted.
Several law firms were looked at to determine the types of firms available. None indicated that the
specific type of experience needed could be located in the amount of time available. Therefore, it
was also difficult to determine the pricing of a specialized law firm. Rates were found at many
different levels, so it is difficult to surmise a typical price of an atypical expertise. However, there is
no indication that the acquisition is unreasonable. In fact, some of the prices proposed were actually
below the Federal rates for travel and interest for unpaid balances, so it appears the firm is being
reasonable in pricing elements. The firm is a small business and considered to be commercial items
procured at an hourly rate with expenses, which appears to be the normal method of billing for legal
representation.
(9) Any other facts supporting the use of other than full and open competition (See 6.303-
2(9)(i)(ii)(iii):
The urgent and compelling nature of this acquisition at this time is due to escalating Congressional
intervention into decisions made by the General Counsel and the NLRB. In accordance with FAR
6.302-2, to allow undue influence would undermine the integrity of decision making authority.
(10) A listing of the sources, if any, that expressed, in writing, an interest in the acquisition.
There are no sources that have expressed interest in writing in this acquisition.
(11) A statement of the actions, if any, the agency may take to remove or overcome any barriers to
competition before any subsequent acquisition for the supplies or services required.
When time allows the
NLRB to properly compete such contact actions in the future, it will do so in accordance with the FAR.
I certify that this Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition is accurate and complete to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
____________________________________________
Program Manager Signature
_____________________________________________
Contracting Officer Signature
_________________________
Date
_________________________
Date
NLRB-FOIA-00009324
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Graham, David
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Jennifer,
I see where you state on this form that you state See attached edited version of SOW. You dont mean there are
additional changes since the first review do you? If so, it wasnt attached to this.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009325
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009326
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Graham, David
David,
This is the one to use.
Thanks,
Jennifer
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009327
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009328
STATEMENT OF WORK
LEGAL SERVICES
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE
legal services.
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009329
COMMUNICATIONS:
EXPENSES:
and approval.
award.
POINTS OF CONTACT
1099 14
th
3704.
th

number is 202-273-4210.
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009330
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009331
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Graham, David
'lkiernan@zuckerman.com'
James, Kathleen; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; St. Clair, Delfina
Contract Needs
SOW Legal Services Boeing 061011.doc; CCR Registration Instructions.doc
Leslie,
Per our conversation today, the following are items we discussed and/or need to address in order to prepare the contract
for signature:
Tax ID number;
CCR Registration Contractors are required to be registered in the Central Contractor Register in order to work
for the Federal Government. Attached are instructions on how to do that. You only have to register one time, and
would need a DUNS number (Dunn & Bradstreet) which the attachment describes. Let me or Delfina know if you
have questions about this;
The Federal Government pays interest on all debts over 30 days from receiving a proper invoice at the published
Treasury rate. That rate is 2.625% per annum until June 30, 2011, and new rates will be published in the Federal
Register beyond that period. Also, the Government has an automated payment system, so you wont likely see
anything over 60 days late as your engagement addresses. The Government usually pays on time now, and is
required to pay interest if it does not. If there are any issues with payment or any other claims, the Disputes Act in
the contract protects contractors with rights and procedures for resolving disputes or issues;
The Federal Government also publishes mileage rates, the same as IRS mileage which I believe is $.51 per mile,
The Federal Government does not award open ended contracts, so we need specific rates for specific positions
lieu of attorneys range from $250 to $900 per hour, and the same for paralegals;
I will have to place a not-to-exceed amount in the contract. This is only to protect the Government from
so that should not be an issue;
and the estimated number of hours for each so we can come up with an estimated contract amount. This is in
contractors who take advantage of an open checkbook as you probably can understand. That amount, just like
the estimate, can be changed by the Contracting Officer as determined necessary;
The Federal Government may terminate a contract at any time with the Termination clauses in the contract, so
Delfina St. Clair will be the Contracting Officer. I have to stay out of that role so I can authorize matters that have
to go above the Contracting Officer. She will do a good job. You are welcome to contact her at any time as well.
that is in place already;
Her number is 202-273-4212 and email is delfina.st.clair@nlrb.gov
Attached is the Statement of Work for your advance review, which will be part of the contract that describes the services
under contract. I believe we have covered everything in your engagement letter, so we would like to use the contract in
lieu of the letter if thats OK. Once we get all of these issues behind us we should be able to get a contract to you for
signature. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
David
David L. Graham, Chief
Acquisitions Management Branch
202-273-4047
NLRB-FOIA-00009332
NOTICE:
Contractors who have not registered with Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) should do so as soon as possible. Contractors bidding on
the new BPA must have a DUNS number and be registered with CCR to be
considered.
To obtain a Dun & Bradstreet (DUNS) number:
Call Duns and Bradstreet at 1-866-705-5711, and ask to be assigned a DUNS
number (the process takes about 5 minutes).
After receiving a DUNS number, you must wait 24 hours before registering
with CCR.
To register with the CCR
Log on to the CCR website (http://www.ccr.gov) and click on Start New
Registration located on the upper left hand side of the homepage. From there,
follow the prompts and fill in the information requested. The information that
will be requested in the required fields has been summarized on the attached
sheet.
NLRB-FOIA-00009333
Required information for CCR Registration
REQUIRED FIELDS are marked with an *. Unmarked fields are optional.
Legal Business Name: This is your name (unless you have a business)
Physical Street Address: Your home address (unless you have a business address)
Business Start Date: When you began (or expect to begin) the service you are
providing for the School of Language Studies (SLS).
Number of Employees: If only you, enter 1
Fiscal Year End: You may enter 12/31, for December 31, unless you have a
company that has a separate fiscal year
Annual Revenue: What you earn or expect to earn from this type of work (can be
an estimate)
Type of Organization: for most of you that will be Sole Proprietorship and your
name will be the Sole Proprietor.
Business Type: As an individual, you are a small business. Of course if you fit
one of the other categories, you may select that category.
Goods/Services: The sample page provided lists codes that refer to training.
For North American Industry Classification System the code related to
training (611630)
For Standard Industrial Classification, the training code is 8299.
Electronic Funds Transfer: This is your banking information
Automated Clearing House: At least one method of contact must be entered for
your financial institution.
ACH US Phone Number
ACH Non-US Phone Number THIS MAY BE LEFT BLANK
ACH FAX
ACH E-mail ________________________________
Remittance Information
This is your mailing address
Accounts Receivable Point of contact
This is your information.
NLRB-FOIA-00009334
STATEMENT OF WORK
LEGAL SERVICES
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE
legal services.
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009335
COMMUNICATIONS:
EXPENSES:
and approval.
award.
POINTS OF CONTACT
1099 14
th
3704.
th

number is 202-273-4210.
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009336
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009337
P age 1 of1
A b ru zzo, Jen n ifer
F ro m :
K earney, B arry J.
S en t:
T h u rsd a y, M a y 0 5 , 2 0 1 1 1 :4 8 P M
To:
S o lo m o n , L a fe E .; M a ttin a , C e le ste J.; G a rza , Jo se ; A b ru zzo , Je n n ife r
S u b ject:
F W :
Im p o rtan ce: H igh
D raft response to Luttig
F ro m : P erson, R obyn
S e n t: T hursd ay, M ay 0 5, 20 11 10:49 A M
T o : K earney, B arry 3.
S u b je c t:
Im p o rta n c e : H igh
Boeing Company
L9-CA-32431
Dear Mr. Luttig:
T h i s i s i n r e s p o n s e t o y o u r M a y 3rd l e t t e r t o m e c o n c e r n i n g t h e
above captioned case.
Your letter makes certain assertions and arguments concerning
statements in the press about this matter. Needless to say, I don't
agree with your contentions. 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 other's 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,
5/5/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009338
A b ru zzo , J e n n ife r
F ro m :
S en t:
To:
S u b ject:
F erguson, John H .
T hursday, June 16, 201111:08 A M
S olom on, Lafe E .; M attina, C eleste J.; A bruzzo, Jennifer; K earney, B arry J ; G arza, Jose,
C leeland, N ancy
R E : F w d:B loom berg's S olom on profile...
Ex. 5
Original Message
From: Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:35 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Ferguson, John H.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza,
Jose
Subject: FW: Fwd:Bloomberg's Solomon profile...
Ex. 5
Original Message
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:27 AM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: Fw: Fwd:Bloomberg's Solomon profile...
Fyi
Original Message
F r o m : S T E P H A N I E A R M O U R , B L O O M B E R G / N E W S R O O M : < s a r m o u r @ b l o o m b e r g . n e t >
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Thu Jun 16 10:13:09 2011
Subject: Fwd:Bloomberg's Solomon profile...
--- Original Sender: KELLEN HENRY, BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM: ---
THANK you for your help! I believe its also going out the web in a
yet. SO, so, so appreciate all the time you and Lafe gave. Really,
email from me to him. He was so generous with his time and i think
show more about who he is. .And we got the laba lamp in the picture
bit, but haven't heard
please pass along this
it helps immensely to
:)
NLRB-FOIA-00009339
Stephanie
Original Message
From: LARRY LIEBERT (BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM:)
To: STEPHANIE ARMOUR (BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM:)
Cc: HOLLY ROSENKRANTZ (BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM:)
6/16 10:07:50
At:
Stephanie: Please forward this PDF of the Lafe Solomon profile to Mr. Solomon and Nancy
Cleeland so they can see how it's being featured (prominently) on BGOV as well as on the
Bloomberg terminal. .
NLRB-FOIA-00009340
T h e N L R B 's co m p la in t m a ke s n o se n se a s th e T im e s e d ito ria l co rre ctly e xp la in s. T h e se q u a si in d e p e n d e n t
g o ve rn m e n t a g e n cie s ca n b e d a n g e ro u s to th e n a tio n a l e co n o m y
Y e a , if th e n a tio n a l e co n o m y is so m e w h e re e lse . B u t n o t if th e n a tio n a l e co n o m y is h e re . T h e su rg e lin e in
E vere tt is likely to go aw a y w hen the S C lin e com es up to full force. T hat is 18 00 pa ychecks h ere in th e local
econ om y. T ha t is m one y spent in your a nd m y sto res if you r from aroun d here .
Isn't tha t part o f nation al econ om y too?
T h e se a re la b o r p ro te ctio n la w s th a t h a ve b e e n o n th e b o o ks fo r 6 0 o r m o re ye a rs. B o e in g b ro ke th e la w a n d
n o sp in in th e p a p e rs w ill ch a n g e th a t. E ve n B o e in g kn o w s th a t w ill lo se in co u rt. T h e y w ill lo se , th e n la te r
settle . T he o nly reaso n that B oeing does n ot w ant to settle now , is they are buying tim e for th eir S C no n-
union line.
A ll the billy-b ob s o ut there ca n't ch ang e the fact th at B oe ing broke the law and w ill lose in court. T h at is w hy
the dog a nd pon y show the cong ressm an is trying to put on to und erm ine th e court case in a real cou rt w ith
a re a l ju d g e , is h a p p e n in g . .
A C o n g re ssio n a l in ve stig a tio n sh o u ld b e co n d u cte d b y th e F B I to d e te rm in e if th e re a re w ro n g d o in g s g o in g
o n w ith in th e N L R B . T h a t a g e n cy's ru lin g is rid icu lo u s. O n e m o re re a so n to re m o ve g o ve rn m e n t fro m o u r
e ve ry d a y life . L e t's d o w n size F e d e ra l, S ta te a n d L o ca l G o ve rn m e n t b y 5 0 % a n d se e h o w w e d o .
A h, you do get th e proble m here righ t? T ha t's like saying, "Le t's ask for a su m m ary judge m ent b y the S tate
T roop ers." In this case a S um m ary Jud gem ent is decide d by a Judge in a cou rt of La w and th e S tate
T roop ers w ork in a com pletely differe nt capa city.
A s to guttin g gove rn m ent, th at has been tried. It's called S om alia. F eel free to go and live there fo r aw hile
an d te st it out. Ju st le t us know how that so ciety fu nctio ns.
It is cle ar that the R ep ublican congressm a n is afra id that B oeing is guilty a nd the ir case w ill no t stand up in
court. S o he is trying to turn th is case fro m a lega l one in a court of law , to a po litical case, of T V ca m eras
and grandstanding.
A re w e really be tter off , answ erin g this im po rtant issu e in a re al court w ith law s, o r the kan garoo court, do g
and pony show in th e cham b ers of th is congre ssm an, w h ere the rules are m ade up by him a s he go es.
I am an inde pende nt vote r. I vote , not fo r the pa rty, but the pe rson an d w hat they sta nd for o r for the issues
tha t I see b est serve this na tion or co m m unity as a w hole . T his con gressm an m eddling in this m a tter this
w ay, just be fore it is to b e a ddress in co urt is so w ron g, h e sho uld be ce nsured .
T his m a tter is alrea dy goin g in fron t of a ju dge, w ith both sides a nd the ir attorney's m akin g their ca se's the
w a y it is su p p o se to b e . T h is co n g re ssm a n is a b u sin g h is p o w e rs in tryin g to sw a y th e o u tco m e b e fo re th e
judg e has a chance to he ar from bo th sides fairly.
If a nyone should b e up o n charg es for ab use of pow er, it is the co ngressm an that is underm in ing the nation s
system of law s a nd the judiciary system that is already in m otion in this m a tter for h is political g ain.
O nce a gain w e see that co ngre ss thinks they a re abo ve the la w .
W hen I started to read this story it didn't see m terribly un re asonab le for co ngress to w ant th is law yer to
testify. but then I re ad the rest of the story and it b ecam e a pparen t that this is a w itch hunt. F irst of a ll, the
reaso ns beh ind the hearing are m urky. Is the R epublica n party sa ying th at a fe deral ag ency is a nti-busine ss
an d e ve n if th ey co uld prove that w as the case w h at w o uld th ey propo se ... d isba nding the ag ency?
S eco ndly, w h y in G od 's na m e w ould you con duct th e hearin gs in a state th at has such a vested in terest?
A nd last... is being d eem ed "an ti-business" re ally all tha t justifies this kind o f govern m ent interference ? T hey
NLRB-FOIA-00009341
m ig h t a s w e ll fo rce th is g u y to p u t h is h e a d a n d h a n d s in th e sto cks in th e to w n sq u a re . T h a t's h o w fa r b a ck
th is kin d o f co n g re ssio n a l a ctio n ta ke s u s!
S o w h e re w e re th e p e o p le h e re co m p la in in g a b o u t "d e m o cra tic o r u n io n sw a y o ve r N L R B " w h e n W . B u sh
w a s in p o w e r.
W A K E U P F O L K S , N L R B a s p e o p le a p p o in te d in a m a jo rity b y th e p re sid e n t in p o w e r a t th e tim e . U n d e r
B u sh , h is a p p o in te e ss m a d e m a n y m u ch m o re q u e stio n a b le ca lls a n d th e re w a s sile n ce b y m a n y n o w
w h in n in g so lo u d ly.
E ve n th e n yo u d id n o t h a ve H o u se D e m s in co n tro l o f h o u se b rin g B u sh 's a p p o in te e 's o n th e ca rp e t in fro n t
o f th e H o u se co m m itte e s. T h is is a sa d p re sce d e n t.
T h is is a p o litica l d o g a n d p o n y sh o w if th e re e ve r w a s o n e .
C o n g re ss h a s n o a u th o rity to a ct o n a n y o f it's fin d in g s fro m th is h e a rin g . T h e y a re ju st p la yin g to th e A n ti-
u n io n cro w d .
A lso , th e a rticle a n d m a n y o th e rs co n tin u e s to sta te th a t th e N L R B w a n ts B o e in g to "b u ild a se co n d lin e " a t
E ve re tt b u t th a t lin e a lre a d y e xists a s a te m p o ra ry lin e . T h e y ju st w a n t it to b e m a d e p e rm a n a n t, o th e rw ise
B o e in g w ill b e la yin g o ff u n io n w o rke rs in th is sta te o n ce th e y ca tch u p o n o rd e rs w h ile th e C h a rle sto n 's p la n t
w ill b e u n a ffe cte d . In p la in e n g lish , th a t m e a n s B o e in g w ill b e sh iftin g w o rk fro m a u n io n lo ca tio n to a n o n -
u n io n lo ca tio n w h e n th a t h a p p e n s. T h is is a vio la tio n o f fe d e ra l la w .
U n d e r th e N L R B 's co m p la in t, th e C h a rle sto n p la n t w ill co n tin u e to ru n e ve n if th e N L R B w in s in co u rt so a ll
Exemption 5
th e a n ti-u n io n rh e to ric th a t th is w ill co st jo b in C h a rle sto n is co m p le te B S .
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009342
U nion W orkers C ry Foul O ver N ew S.C . B oeing Plant : N PR
Page 1 of 3
U n ion W ork ers C ry F ou l O ver N ew S .C . B oein g P lan t
by K A TH Y LO H R
June 9. 2011
A A
te xt size A
A new B oeing plant in S outh C arolina is the
subject of a legalbattle that's playing out across
the S outh and in C ongress.
T he controversy is over B oeing's decision to
assem ble its fuel-efficient 787 D ream liner in
nonunion S outh C arolina instead of in W ashington
state, w here it has built planes for decades.
E nlarge
B oeing
C o n stru ctio n cre w s w o rk to fin ish B o e in g 's n e w 7 8 7
T he com pany says S outh C arolina offered a lot of
incentives to get the plant, but the union says
B oeing broke the law and violated w orkers'rights.
D re a m lin e r a sse m b ly p la n t in N o rth C h a rle sto n , S C T h e
co m p a n y p la n s to h ire 1 ,0 0 0 n o n u n io n w o rke rs a n d sta rt
a sse m b lin g p la n e s in Ju ly
P lan t T im elin e N ot A ffected
B oeing's enorm ous assem bly plant near the
airport in N orth C harleston is alm ost finished. Inside, w orkers are installing equipm ent w here new
em ployees w illbuild the D ream liner.
C andy E slinger, a spokesw om an for B oeing in S outh C arolina, says she can't talk specifically about the
union com plaint. B ut she says it hasn't changed anything at the plant.
"O ur plans are stillgoing forw ard," E slinger says. "W e w illbe starting production here in July of 2011
and w e'lldeliver our first airplane out of S outh C arolina in 2012."
T he long-term plan is to produce three planes a m onth in S outh C arolina and seven in W ashington
state. B oeing spokesm an T im N eale says the com pany negotiated w ith the union, but failed.
"W e w ere looking to m ake a new investm ent and
new production capacity," N eale says. "O ur
current contract acknow ledges our right to locate
w ork elsew here and that's w hat w e chose to do in
this case, because w e just couldn't get the term s
from them that w e needed."
R etaliation M ove?
E nlarge
B ruce S m ith/A P
S o u th C a ro lin a R e p u b lica n S e n L in d se y G ra h a m (fro m le ft),
G o v. N ikki H a le y a n d sta te H o u se S p e a ke r B o b b y H a rre ll
liste n to C h a rle sto n M a yo r Jo se p h R ile y Jr criticize a
N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd co m p la in t a g a in st B o e in g in
N orth C harle ston, S C , on A pril 21
B ut the m achinists union says it's not that sim ple.
T he union says B oeing built the plant in nonunion
S outh C arolina to retaliate against W ashington
w orkers for previous strikes, and it says doing so
is a violation of federallabor law . T he m achinists
http://w w w .npr.org/2011/06/09/137081954/union-w orkers-cry-foul-over-new -s-c-boeing-p.. . 6/15/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00009343
U nion W orkers C ry Foul O ver N ew S.C . B oeing Plant : N PR
Page 2 of 3
turned to the N ationalLabor R elations B oard,
w hich investigates labor disputes.
In A pril, the top law yer for the N LR B issued a form alcom plaint against B oeing. S oon after, the issue
erupted in the nation's capital. R epublican leaders introduced federallegislation and began a cam paign
against the m achinists union. S outh C arolina S en. Lindsey G raham w as one of them .
"N obody's pay w as cut. N obody's benefits w ere reduced
because they m oved to S outh C arolina, so this com plaint is
just frivolous," G raham said in a S enate floor speech.
T he N LR B says allof B oeing's w ork on the D ream liner
should be done in W ashington state. B ut G raham and
others say no one should be able to tella com pany w here it
[I]n A m erica, you d on 't
settle ju d icial law
en fo rcem en t ca ses in
p olitics. Y ou settle th em
Exemption 5
'It's A b o u t B e in g F a ir A n d H o n e st'
In N orth C harleston w here the B oeing plant is providing m ore than 1,000 nonunion jobs som e
residents at a localdiscount store say they're not sure w hat to think.
"W e need the w ork here too in C harleston but it's about being fair and being honest," says A nthony
M anuel, a m em ber of the longshorem en's union. "If you did them w rong how w e feelif you gonna do us
w rong here in C harleston too."
B ut B randy H allsays the jobs w illreally help C harleston. w hich struggled after the navalbase w as
closed in 1996. S he's not sure the union should com plain.
"T hey're not entirely m oving the plant so they stilldo have an econom y up there based around that and
it's just that I'm not sure I see w here the issue is, to tellyou the truth," she says.
T here's a hearing in S eattle on June 14 about the legalissues, but it's not likely to resolve the m atter.
B oeing officials say if they lose, they'llappealto the federalcourts, w here the case could rem ain for
years.
NLRB-FOIA-00009344
U nion W orkers C ry Foul O ver N ew S.C .B oeing Plant : N PR
Page 3 of 3
R elated N P R S to ries
A ir Force P icks B oeing For M ajor M ilitary C ontract Feb. 24, 2011
B oeing To C ut 900 Jobs In Long B each, C alif. Jan, 20. 2011
W oes M ount For B oeing's M uch-A w aited D ream liner D ec. 9, 2010
NLRB-FOIA-00009345
IA M / B o e in g L e a d e rs h ip M e e tin g
T h u rs d a y , A p ril 1 6 , 2 0 0 9
T h e B o e in g C o m p a n y
100 N . R iversid e, C h icago, IL 60606
C on feren ce R oom 261A 1
B o e in g A tte n d e e s :
IA M A tten d e es:
Jim M cN erney
T om B uffenbarger
C h a irm a n , P re sid e n t a n d
C h ie f E xe cu tive O ffice r,
Scott C arson
E xe cu tive V ice P re sid e n t,
P re sid e n t a n d C h ie f E xe cu tive O ffice r,
B o e in g C o m m e rcia l A irp la n e s
Jim A lbaugh
E xe cu tive V ice P re sid e n t
P re sid e n t a n d C h ie f E xe cu tive O ffice r, In te g ra te d
D efense S ystem s
R ick Stephens
In te rn a tio n a l P re sid e n t
R ich M ichalski
G e n e ra l V ice P re sid e n t H e a d q u a rte rs
B ob M artinez
G e n e ra l V ice P re sid e n t S o u th e rn T e rrito ry
P h il G ruber
G e n e ra l V ice P re sid e n t M id w e st T e rrito ry
G ary A llen
G e n e ra l V ice P re sid e n t E le ct W e ste rn T e rrito ry
N eil G ladstein
D ire cto r S tra te g ic R e so u rce s D e p a rtm e n t
M atthew M cK innon
S e n io r V ice P re sid e n t, H u m a n R e so u rce s a n d
A d m in istra tio n
D ire cto r L e g isla tive a n d P o litica l A ctio n D e p a rtm e n t
T im K eating
D istrict 7 0 D ire ctin g B u sin e ss R e p re se n ta tive
S e n io r V ice P re sid e n t, P u b lic P o licy,
G ene W oloshyn
V ice P re sid e n t, E m p lo ye e R e la tio n s
N orm B artlett
V ice P re sid e n t, H R In te g ra te d D e fe n se S yste m s
D oug K ight
V ice P re sid e n t, H R B o e in g C o m m e rcia l A irp la n e s
John V an G els
V ice P re sid e n t, O p e ra tio n s & S u p p lie r M a n a g e m e n t
S t. L o u is S e n io r S ite E xe cu tive , ID S
R ay C onner
V ice P re sid e n t, G e n e ra l M a n a g e r, S u p p ly C h a in
M a n a g e m e n t & O p e ra tio n s
B o e in g C o m m e rcia l A irp la n e s
Steve R ooney
B ob P etroff
D istrict 2 4 D ire ctin g B u sin e ss R e p re se n ta tive
G ary H olt
D istrict 7 2 5 D ire ctin g B u sin e ss R e p re se n ta tive
G ordon K ing
T om W roblew ski
M ark B londin
JA M O ve ra ll B o e in g A e ro sp a ce C o o rd in a to r
R on E ldridge
A e ro sp a ce C o o rd in a to r
F rank Santos
R ay M offatt
R evised 6123/2010 8:44 A M
1(a)
NLRB-FOIA-00009346
IA M / B o ein g L ead ersh ip M eetin g
A g en d a
Tim e
7:00A
Event
B reakfast
Presenter(s)
7:30A
W elcom e and Introductions
Jim M cN erney
7:45A
R em arks
T om B uffenbarger
8:00A
Integrated D efense System s (ID S) U pdate
Jim A lbaugh
8:45A
Joint Presentation ID S
John V an G els / G ordon K ing
9:10A
B reak
9:25A
B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes (B C A ) U pdate
ScottC arson
10:10A
Joint Presentation B C A
D oug K ight /T om W roblew ski
10:30A
B enefits
R ick Stephens
11:00A
W ashington D C U pdate
T im K eating/R ich M ichalski
A djourn
R evised 6/23/2010 8.44 A M
NLRB-FOIA-00009347
B O E IN G P R O P R IE T A R Y - D IS T R IB U T IO N L IM IT E D T O B O E IN G P E R S O N N E L O N L Y
A inerezA v
Arguably Ex. 4
B O E IN G is a tradem ark ofB oeing M anagem entC om pany
C opyright it+ 2009 B oeing A t rights reserved
1(b)
NLRB-FOIA-00009348
Arguably Ex. 4
C o p y rig h t 0 2 0 0 9 B o e in g A ll rig h ts re s e rv e d
0 7 1 0 3 1 _ ID S E n v iro n m e n t_ E x C o 1
NLRB-FOIA-00009349
B O E IN G P R O P R IE TA R Y - D IS TR IB U TIO N LIM ITE D TO B O E IN G P E R S O N N E L O N LY
Arguably Ex. 4
C o p y rig h t (0 2 0 0 9 B o ein g M n g h ts reserv ed
0 7 1 0 3 1 JO S E n v iro n rn en t E x C o
I3
NLRB-FOIA-00009350
Arguably Ex. 4
C opyright @ 2009 B oeing A llnghts reserved
B O E IN G P R O P R IE T A R Y D IS T R IB U T IO N L IM IT E D T O B O E IN G P E R S O N N E L O N L Y
071031_ID S E nvironm ent E xC o I
NLRB-FOIA-00009351
Arguably Ex. 4
C o p y rig h t 0 :t 2 0 0 9 B o ein g A ll n g h ts reserv ed
0 7 1 0 3 1 JO S E rn n ro n rrien t_ E x C o
I5
NLRB-FOIA-00009352
Arguably Ex. 4
C opyright 0 2009 B oeing A ll nghts reserved
071031_ID S E nvIronm ent_E xC o
I6
NLRB-FOIA-00009353
Arguably Ex. 4
C o p y rig h t itS 2 0 0 9 B o ein g A ll n g h ts reserv ed
0 7 1 0 3 1 _ I0 S E n v tro n m en t_ E x C o I
NLRB-FOIA-00009354
Arguably Ex. 4
A pril 2009
C o p y rig h t 2 0 0 9 B o ein g A ll n g h ts reserv ed
B O E IN G P R O P R IE T A R Y D IS T R IB U T IO N L IM IT E D T O B O E IN G P E R S O N N E L O N L Y
0 7 1 0 3 1 1 0 S E n v iro n m e n t E x C o I 8
NLRB-FOIA-00009355
Arguably Ex. 4
F ilenam e ppt I
NLRB-FOIA-00009356
Arguably Ex. 4
071031_113S E nvironm ent_E xC o I 1
NLRB-FOIA-00009357
Arguably Ex. 4
B O E IN G P R O P R IE T A R Y IN F O R M A T IO N
NLRB-FOIA-00009358
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00009359
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00009360
Arguably Ex. 4
B O E IN G P R O P R IE TA R Y IN FO R M A TIO N
NLRB-FOIA-00009361
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00009362
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00009363
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00009364
Arguably Ex. 4
B O E IN G P R O P R IE TA R Y IN FO R M A TIO N
NLRB-FOIA-00009365
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00009366
Arguably Ex. 4
B O E IN G PR O PR IE T A R Y IN FO R M A T IO N
10
NLRB-FOIA-00009367
Arguably Ex. 4
B O E IN G is a d acem ark at B aen a M an ag em en t C o m p an y .
C opyright ',"j- 2 0 0 9 B o ein g . A ll rip ely reserv ed .
B O E IN G P R O P R IE T A R Y
121
NLRB-FOIA-00009368
Arguably Ex. 4
C opynght @ 2009 B oetng P JI nghts reserved
I 22
NLRB-FOIA-00009369
Arguably Ex. 4
C opyright C S 2009 B oeing A ll nghts reserved
123
NLRB-FOIA-00009370
Arguably Ex. 4
C o p y n g h t 0 2 0 0 9 B o ein g A ll n g h ts reserv ed
I
124
NLRB-FOIA-00009371
?jL ___47474E Z A W
kg
C o p yrig h t 2 0 0 9 B o e in g . A ll rig h ts re se rve d .
NLRB-FOIA-00009372
1? 1.26FISIE 74/A /A G
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00009373
Arguably Ex. 4
C opynght 2007 B oeing A ll nghts reserved
H um an R esources Leadership Team I27
NLRB-FOIA-00009374
Arguably Ex. 4
C opyright 2007 B oeing A llnghts reserved
B O E IN G P R O P R IE TA R Y
H um an R esources L eadership T eam
I 28
NLRB-FOIA-00009375
Arguably Ex. 4
C o p y n g h t 9 2 0 0 7 B o ein g A ll n g h ts reserv ed
H um an R esources Leadership T eam I
29
NLRB-FOIA-00009376
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00009377
Arguably Ex. 4
C opyrighte 2007 B oeing A llrights reserved
H um an R esources L eadership T eam I 31
NLRB-FOIA-00009378
Arguably Ex. 4
C opyright 10 2007 B oeing A llnghts reserved
B O E IN G P R O P R IE TA R Y
H um an R esources Leadership Team
I 32
NLRB-FOIA-00009379
Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D)
NLRB-FOIA-00009380
10
11
INTERVIEW OF
12
JIM ALBAUGH
13
BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT
14
BY
15
THE SEATTLE TIMES REPORTER
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
1113 W. Fireweed Lane, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009381
1
2
(Beginning of proceedings.)
But, you know, I feel impelled to ask some hard
questions on behalf of basically the community in
Washington_
Sure.
...as a result of last year. Last year, we had the
decision to locate the second 787 line in Charleston.
Uh-huh (affirmative).
And then subsequently, you announced that all 787 work
10
from the Puget Sound area would be duplicated
11
elsewhere. So I think the local community is clearly
12
worried about Boeing's future here. And that's
13
something that's followed on from, you know, you moved
14
the headquarters in 2001 and there have been repeated
15
threats that future work might not be here. So last
16
year seemed to really increase that feeling. So what
17
is Boeing's commitment to Washington state?
18
Well this is the headquarters of Boeing Commercial
19
Aircraft and it will be, I think, for probably
20
forever. The issue last fall was really about, you
21
know, how we could ensure production stability and how
22
we could ensure that we were competitive over the long
23
haul. And we had some very productive discussions with
24
the union. And unfortunately, we just didn't come to
25
an agreement where we felt we could ensure production
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009382
stability. And read that is 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. Now it's my hope, and I
will tell you, Dominique, you know my preference is to
do the work here in the future. But we'll do work here
if we can make sure that we have the stability of the
10
production lines and that we can be competitive over
11
the long haul. And those are the two things that I
12
think I have to ensure, you know, our customers, and I
13
have to ensure, also, the stockholders of the Boeing
14
Company.
15
So looking out into the future, now that you have
16
decided on having this other plant in Charleston, how
17
do you see the geographic shape of Boeing and the
18
balance there between those two bicoastal plants in
19
the future?
20
Well 1 guess I don't really see it as a balance. You
21
know, clearly the center of gravity is here in Puget
22
Sound and will continue to be here in Puget Sound. And
23
I'm very hopeful as we, you know, continue to have
24
discussions with the union that, you know, we'll be
25
able to come up with ways of being competitive here,
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009383
and we can come up with ways of ensuring that we're
not going to have labor strikes. And if we can get
through those two hurdles, we're going to be doing
work here for a long, long time. And there are no
discussions of moving any work that's currently here
out of Puget Sound.
Right. But, of course, it's future work that people
are worried about. I mean what are the chances that
the next new jet, after the 787, will be built here?
1 0 A
Yeah. I'll tell you, the commitment that I can give
11
you is that the first preference is to put the work
12
here. But we have to ensure ourselves that we're going
13
to have a stable production line, and we have to
14
ensure that we can be competitive over the long haul.
15
You know, if we don't, we're not going to be selling
16
any airplanes. And I think that's the worst outcome
17
for Puget Sound, and that's the worst outcome for the
18
company.
1 9 Q
Well so when the time comes to announce the launch of
20
a new airplane program, which could come in a few
21
years, that you would say - right, you're going to
22
build the next one and announce some plan for it? Are
23
we going - are the people of this state once again
24
going to face the competition with other states in the
25
U.S. to win it?
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009384
You know, I guess I don't really view it as a
competition.
But it was last time.
I don't think it was. It was not a competition. What
it was, was - again, we've had strikes three out of
the last four times we've had a labor negotiation with
the IAM. And I'm not blaming that on the IAM. I mean
that is an issue between management, created by
management, and created by labor. You know, we need to
10
improve the relationship that we have. And we've got
11
to get to a position where we can ensure our customers
12
that every three years they're not going to have a
13
protracted shutdown. You know, we have customers right
14
now that are telling us that in contracts they don't
15
want to write in excusable delays for strikes. I mean
16
that's not a situation that's good for us. It's not a
17
good situation for them. It's not a good situation for
18
labor. And if one projects out another 15 years, we're
19
not just going to be competing against the Europeans,
20
we'll be competing against the Europeans, the
21
Brazilians, the Canadians, the Chinese, and the
22
Russians. And we have an obligation to make sure that
23
as we compete again not just one, but compete against
24
four, you know, we have got a cost structure and a
25
productivity capability that will allow us to continue
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009385
to compete.
1
2
In saying that it wasn't a competition, clearly you're
referring to the Charleson decision last year. But I
was referring to the 2003 competition when Boeing
actually had a formal competition to find out where
they were going to build the 787.
7
8
So the question is will there be another competition
like that when you build the next airplane?
9
10
Yeah. Well I wasn't involved in that one and_
I don't think I would - if I'm involved, I'm not going
11
to have, a competition like that, I can tell you that.
12
But what we are going to do is study very hard, with
13
the first option being here, is to make sure that we
14
do the right thing for the customer, which means not
15
have labor stoppages; and do the right thing for the
16
customer to give them the kind of value that they want
17
in the airplanes.
18
Just on the - to dwell on the Charleston expansion for
19
a moment. It does seem to me that the complexity and
20
expense and risk attached to doing all that there is
21
is something that's hard to justify. Does it really
22
make business sense?
23
Yeah. There's no question that whenever you go to a
24
green field site, there's risk involved. At the same
25
time, with the protracted labor stoppage that we had
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009386
back last - I guess it was 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.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:
And, Jim, the flip side of that
is all the advantages that we have right here in the Puget
Sound.
10
Yeah, absolutely. Again, my first - my first
11
preference, when I started looking at this last fall,
12
was to stay here. And we just could not get over those
13
two hurdles, you know, how do we ensure stability of
14
manufacturing and how could we ensure that labor c o s t s
15
weren't going to continue to escalate.
16
Do you think a chance was missed to - I mean you had a
17
labor problem. That was clear. You just had that
18
strike.
19
Yeah.
20
Y o u had a big relationship with the union problem.
21
Potentially, you could have fixed that and got your
22
production here and not had the expense of Charleston.
23
Yeah. You know_
24
Was a chance missed?
25
We tried. We did not get there. And you can blame both
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009387
sides for that. And over the next couple of years,
we're going to do everything we can to work with the
union to make sure that we don't have another
stoppage, and that we have a path to competitiveness
over the long haul, and that we get the kind of
relationship with the union where we don't have to
worry about labor stoppages in the future. You know,
this is a great workforce here. I mean they are
magicians. They do things that I don't think any labor
10
force in the world can do. And, you know, I feel my
11
job is to make sure they have jobs five years from
12
now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now. But we're
13
not - none of us are going to have jobs if we continue
14
to have strikes that go on for three or four months,
15
you know, every three . years.
16
So to sum up the Charleston decision - let's be clear,
17
the Charleston decision, it wasn't about W a s h i n g t o n ' s
18
business climate, right?
19
It was not.
20
It was not about trying to get lower labor costs,
going where work is cheap?
21
22
It...
23
It was about the strikes?
.24
It was about ensuring to our customers that when we
25
c o m m i t to deliver airplanes on certain dates that we
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009388
actually do deliver. And we have lost - our customers
have lost confidence in our ability to do that,
because of the strikes. The other thing is the rate of
escalation of the wages. You know, they continue to go
up in a dramatic fashion. You know, how can we flatten
that out? And those were the two things that we were
after.
Well let's just move on to talk about the union in a
little bit more detail. You know, when you came here,
9
10
I think it was last July for the rollout of the
11
Poseidon (indiscernible - interrupted)_
12
Yeah, yeah.
13
-you talked about, you praised the men and women of
Puget Sound that made this possible.
14
15
Yep. They're fabulous.
16
And you just repeated that here. And yet, you know,
17
that was in July. And then in the fall - it seemed
18
like a slap in the face to the people here to say well
19
we're going to build it somewhere - we're going to
20
take the 787 work somewhere else.
21
Yeah, you see, I guess I don't see it as a slap in the
22
face, Dominique. I mean I think that if we don't have
23
a company, nobody has jobs. And if we can't meet the
24
promises we make to our customers relative to delivery
25
of aircraft, we're not going to be in the business. If
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009389
10
we continue to have costs that go up, you know, faster
than the competition, we're not going to be selling
any airplanes. I mean this is about making our company
competitive over the long haul. By going to
Charleston, you know, I believe that we're going to
help reduce costs here. Now you say, you know, how is
'
that possible? Well the average cost of an airplane
built here and the average cost of an airplane built
in Charleston goes into our program accounting. The
10
average unit price of an airplane should go down as a
11
result of our being in Charleston. That will create
12
more demand for airplanes built here and in
13
Charleston.
14
But is - how big a component of that average cost of
15
an airplane is actually labor? It's not a big chunk of
16
it, is it?
17
It's not a big chunk. It's - and I'm not going to give
18
you the exact percentage. It's a significant
19
percentage. It's less than half, certainly. But again,
20
I think the other bigger part of it is when we commit
21
to delivering airplanes, people put together their
22
business plans based on assuming they're going to get
23
delivery on certain dates, and when they don't get
24
delivery that impacts their ability to meet their
25
business plan to make money and to buy more airplanes
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009390
11
over the long haul. And they will think twice the next
time they decide to buy an airplane from us or from
Airbus or 10 years from now from the Canadians or the
Chinese or the Brazilians. This is going to be a very
competitive world we're in, much more competitive than
it's been to date. And we've enjoyed a duopoly here.
And, you know, all the rules are going to change. And,
you know, when you're in a duopoly as we are, and
you're in second place, you're in last place. I don't
want to be in last place. I want to be in first place.
10
11
failure to reach agreement resulting in that decision_
12
13
And blame that on both of us, the fact that we didn't
get there.
14
15
So given what happened with the union last year, the
Well just forgetting about blame, I'm wondering - well
16
let me ask about - first of all, what is your attitude
17
to unions?
18
I've always gotten along great with unions. I've
19
worked with them. I've walked the concrete with them.
20
I've listened to them. I've watched them do, you know,
21
amazing things relative to productivity. I've seen
22
them, you know, work miracles out there in the
23
production line. You see that every day down in
24
Renton. You see that every day up in Everett on the
25
777 where they're making huge strides relative to
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009391
12
productivity.
1
Q
Well that's the workforce. But the union itself,
Boeing has often portrayed the union as an obstacle
between itself and its workforce.
You know, where there's a - where there is an issue
with the union, it's - that's a reflection on
management. You know, we create the environment. We
create the culture. And, you know, my hope is that we
can have good relationships at the top, you know, all
10
the way down to people on the factory floor. I was in
11
a meeting last week in Washington, D.C., you know,
12
with some of the leadership of the IAN. And we have
13
many things that we agree on. And I think as we go
14
forward, I hope there's more things we agree on,
15
because neither one of us are going to be in very good
16
shape unless we're selling airplanes.
1 7 Q
Was Mr. Buffenbarger there?
1 8 A
Mr. Buffenbarger was not.
1 9 Q
Well but given what happened last year, I mean you're
20
now the new guy in the position.
2 1 A
Yeah.
2 2 Q
And you've got all the - you've got the poison that
23
entered the relationship as a result of those failed
24
talks. How do you fix it now?
2 5 A
I think you fix it by communicating. And I think that
'
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009392
13
the IAN understands that we're entering a global
economy, global competition. It's going to be more
than just ourselves and the Europeans. And our ability
to be productive, you know, our ability to keep the
promises that we make to our customers - I mean those
are the things that are going to dictate whether or
not we have a company and whether or not we're selling
airplanes in years to come. And I think that, you
know, once we agree on where we need to go together
that we can figure out a way to get there.
10
11
Well obviously you'd like a better relationship with
12
IAN, and you would hope to achieve it. But does the
13
cost of labor here mean that Boeing is always going to
14
favor some non-union alternative, because it is going
15
to be cheaper?
16
You know, you look at the installed base that we have
17
here. You look at all the tooling that we've invested
18
here. You look at all the training and the skilled
19
workforce that we have here. You look at the ability
20
of this team to take cost out of an airplane. I mean
21
those count for a lot. Those count for just as much,
22
if not more, than just the wages. But again, the wages
23
have gone up dramatically. And, you know, we need to
24
have the knee of that curve inch over a little bit. We
25
can't continue to go up at the dramatic fashion we
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009393
14
have in the past.
1
Q
I'd also like to point to certain irony. The tanker
competition is (indiscernible) now and you've got
heavy Congressional support on that tanker.
We do.
And that support in Congress is based on the need to
protect good American jobs.
7
8
Yeah.
And when they talk about good American jobs and well
10
paying American jobs, they're contrasting it to non-
11
union jobs in Alabama. And the union delivered that
12
Congressional support largely - well not just the
13
union, but there's a big element...
1 4 A
Yeah.
15
_that they - those Democratic politicians who are
1 6 ,
union supported, that's a big element. And so the
17
union has delivered that for you. What do you give to
18
the union?
1 9 A
We've got 60,000 - no, we've got 75,000 jobs here in
20
Puget Sound. And we're going to have, you know, tens
21
of thousands of jobs for years to come. We're talking
22
about Charleston where we may have, you know, 3,000 or
23
4,000 or 5,000 people. You know, clearly the union
24
recognizes that. Certainly the politicians in the
25
state of Washington, the elected officials, understand
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009394
15
that this is the center of gravity. And that's not
going to change. Now the 767 airplane, in its
entirety, is going to built here by the workers that
have built this airplane in the past. Nothing is going
to change in that regard. And the last time I checked
in Charleston, those were U.S. citizens down there.
But again, non-union and much lower paid jobs.
Those are well paying jobs down there.
By the way, do you have any concerns, as you look at
10
the future, what we've already - you've agreed with me
11
that the business climate here wasn't a particular
12
factor in that decision last year. Of course, all the
13
states in the union right now, in the current
14
downturn, are in terrible financial trouble -
15
budgetary trouble, South Carolina as well as
16
Washington. Do you have any concerns about changes
17
ahead that might affect your future here in this state
18
in terms of.
19
Well I think you can probably say that about, you
20
know, about all the states in the country right now
21
with the economy being what it is.
22
R ig h t.
23
But again, the overriding factor was not the business
24
climate, and it was not the wages we're paying people
25
today. It was that we cannot afford to have a work
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009395
16
stoppage, you know, every three years. We cannot
afford to continue the rate of escalation of wages as
we have in the past. You know, those are the
overriding factors. And my bias was to stay here, but
we could not get those two issues done, despite the
best efforts of the union and the best efforts of the
company.
You're on the company's executive consult. There is
certainly a perception that Chief Executive McNerney
9
10
drove that Charleston decision and that some people
11
here were not too happy about it. Were you a part of
12
that decision?
13
Well I was the one that made the presentation to the
14
Board of Directors. And, you know, I went into this
15
thing feeling that if we could get it done here, we
16
could save the company a lot of money. And there were
17
two things that 1 needed, as I mentioned, and we
18
couldn't get those two things done. And not getting
19
those two things done, I made the recommendation, that
20
I thought was the right one, and that was to go to
21
Charleston.
22
last question.
23
24
25
So before we leave that subject entirely, just one
Somehow I knew you were going to talk about this one,
Dominique.
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009396
17
So there are - there has been talk here for many
years, Boeing is out of here, Boeing is leaving,
Boeing doesn't like us anymore. Can we - as a final
question on that topic, is that - put a nail in that?
You can put that one to bed. I mean we've got, you
know, a terrific workforce here. We've got, you know,
engineers who, you know, have more depth and breathe
of knowledge about building airplanes - more than any
place that I've ever been. We've got a talented
10
workforce. You know, this is where our people, you
11
know, want to live. This is where we want to be. We've
12
had a great partnership with the state of Washington
13
and I hope it's one that continues for a long, long
14
time to come. Again, I preface it by - or I caveat it
15
by saying that it is going to be a much more
16
competitive environment out there in the future. And
17
work any place is not an entitlement.
18
It sounds like if you can fix things with the
19
machinists, the outlook for here looks an awful lot
20
rosier?
21
I sure hope it does. That's - you know, I'm going to
22
be here a few years, and I would like nothing better
23
than to get a great contract with the union and, you
24
know, put to bed the concern that our customers have
25
of our ability to deliver on the promises we make.
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009397
18
You mentioned the engineers here. I want to talk about
that. And one of the things you did when you came here
in October, you established an advisory group of sort
of old-time Boeing people, people like John Roundhill,
Joe Sutter, (indiscernible - interrupted)_
6
7
8
9
Q
A
Yeah.
_people associated with the old style of Boeing. '
Yep.
And then in January, Boeing elevated nine engineering
10
leaders to - in a move that was spun as harking back
11
to the early days of - when (indiscernible) companies
12
were driven by engineering culture.
13
Yep.
14
S o I want to ask you. I mean, you're an engineer.
15
Yeah.
16
You started as an engineer. Is that a specific goal to
reinstate the primacy of engineering within B C A ?
17
18
I think decisions need to be driven more by
19
engineering and less by the - what I'll call the
20
business decision makers. I think on the 787 program,
21
we made some decisions that took on much more risk
22
than we should have taken on. Some of these
23
outsourcing decisions were - we did not consider the
24
extent - the risk that we'd take on by going outside.
25
And I think that we are, and we will, make sure that
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009398
19
the engineers and the voice of the engineers is much
more involved in the decision making as we go forward.
You know, bringing the senior advisory group in - a
lot of people left this company during the merger,
right after the merger. And a lot of people left, I
think, right after - you know, 2000, 2001, because
they didn't see us developing any new programs. And we
lost a lot of the heritage of this company. And, you
know, going into the 787 program, we didn't have a
10
large group of people that had ever been through a
11
development program before. You know, the great thing
12
about 747 and the 787 is we're training a whole new
13
generation of engineers and program managers on how to
14
do development programs. By bringing back, you know,
15
Sutter (ph) and Roundhill (ph) and Quinolivin (ph) and
16
those icons of the Boeing company, we're getting the
17
benefit of hundreds of years of knowledge and
18
experience. And they're people that I listen to.
19
They're people I want to get my team in front of so
20
they can get the benefit of their history and the
21
benefit of the things that they've done right and the
22
things that they have done wrong over the years. You
23
know, the whole issue of the iconic engineers, you
24
know, I started that with John Tracy in the old IDS
25
organization. When I grew up, the sheriff in town was
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009399
20
the chief engineer. You didn't do anything without
getting the chief engineer on board. And if you didn't
get him on board and you were wrong, it was not a good
situation. And I pushed John very hard that we needed
to elevate the iconic engineers in this company. They
needed to get more recognition. They needed to be more
involved. And with some of the changes that we made by
promoting by eight or nine vice presidents into
engineer - into engineering does that.
10
But another aspect of the relationship with your
11
engineers is your relationship with another union,
12
which is SPEEA. And it does seem to me that that
13
relationship has been adversarial for a while.
14
Yeah. Well_
15
So if you want to elevate engineers, why so
adversarial with S P E E A ?
16
17
Yeah, well, you know, I don't have all the history.
18
You probably know more about it than I do, D o m i n i q u e ,
19
but, you know, this place doesn't run without
20
engineers and it doesn't run without machinists. And I
21
think that what we need to do with our engineering
22
organization is be real clear about, you know, what
23
part of engineering do we want to do here. And, you
24
know, I think what happened on the 787 was we
25
outsourced things without explaining to the
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009400
21
engineering community why. And one of the things that
I've sat down with our new chief of engineering, you
know, Mike Delaney, is we need a strategy. What are
those things? What is that IP that we're going to do
here? What are those tasks that only the Boeing
Company understands and the things that we need to
hold close? The flight controls, you know, never
outsource that. The wings, you never outsource that.
The fuselage, the composites, don't outsource those.
10
We need to define very clearly things that we should
11
do and have to do, and those things that anybody can
12
do. And those things that we need to do to hold onto
13
our IP, we need to build the walls around those very
14
high. And I think we need to go and communicate to the
15
union of SPEEA and the IAN union, what are those
16
things that we want to hold close and hold dear. We
17
outsource too much.
18
Yeah, well that's .- I definitely want to talk about
19
that. But I mean, you just said never outsource the
20
wings. But isn't it too late? You've already
21
outsourced the wings to Japan.
2 2
Well we have. Well, we'll build other airplanes.
2 3
So Mitsubishi is not going to be building all the
wings in the future?
24
25
Well I didn't say that. I didn't say that. Those are
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009401
22
1
2
examples. Those are examples.
Okay. Well actually you and Mr. McNerney have - you've
talked repeatedly in various menus about this issue.
And what you've said is you're going to draw the lines
differently. And that's the phrase that you used.
6
7
Yeah.
And I'm wondering if you could just elaborate a little
bit on what that means. In particular, for example, I
understand it's already happening with the 787-9, the
10
second version of the 787, that you are outsourcing
11
less of it than you did on the -8. But how exactly? I
12
mean the wingsare still being made in Japan.
13
Yeah.
14
The fuselage in Italy.
15
We lost control of the design. We lost control of the
16
interface. We didn't provide enough oversight to the
17
subcontractors that were doing the various elements of
18
engineering and manufacturing. On the -9, we've pulled
19
some of that engineering back. As you know, we took
20
over the (indiscernible) facility. We took over the
21
Global Aeronautical facility.
22
Right.
23
S o w e now have control of some of the fuselage of the
24
airplane. So we have pulled some back for both the -8
25
and the -9. Those lines that we're going to have to
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009402
23
redraw, we're in the process of redrawing those right
now. If you look at a product strategy, a
manufacturing strategy, an outsourcing strategy, an
engineering strategy, all those are very interrelated.
And we're in the process of defining those strategies
right now.
One thing that you did on the 87 was you not only had
Mitsubishi build the wings in Japan, but you had them
do the detailed design of the interior of the wing.
And is that continuing on the -9?
10
11
I believe it is. It's not the same wing. The new wing
12
is - it's the same length, but it's a stiffer wing and
13
it's got - carries more load. So it's a different
14
wing. I think that they're still doing the wing design
15
on the -9. We can check that for you.
1 6 Q
But, you know, given what happened with the 87, and I
17
think if I read what you just said is, you know, an
18
admission that it didn't work very well and that you
19
did make mistakes in outsourcing the work.
2 0 A
Well we learned a lot.
2 1 Q
And you paid for it.
2 2 A
We paid for it.
23
You've had two years' delay. So isn't that an argument
24
for - there's some surprise that despite that, Boeing
25
is nevertheless insisting that the 787 supply chain
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009403
24
model is the one for the future. You'll draw the lines
slightly differently, but you'll stick to that model.
Why when it didn't work so well?
Or how do you change it to make it work?
I mean it's really easy in hindsight to second guess
decisions that were made. And I think they made a lot
of good decisions on the 787. One that they got the
airplane right. I mean this is going to be an airplane
10
that's very efficient. This is going to be an airplane
11
that I know people are going to want to buy. And this
12
is going to be an airplane that changes the way people
13
travel and changes the way that airplanes are built.
14
But I think we outsourced elements of the airplane to
15
people that didn't have a lot of experience at it. We
16
didn't provide them the kind of oversight and support
17
that was necessary. And we lost control of some of the
18
interfaces. So what do we have to do differently or
19
better going forward? Well again, we're going to
20
redraw those line. And we have to treat any
21
subcontractor in the future as an external factory, as
22
an external design team. And we need to look at them
23
as more than just a company that we throw a
24
specification over the wall to. We need to be much
25
more - but I think that if you talk to me, if you talk
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009404
25
to Jim McNerney, we'll both say that we moved up the
value chain too far and we took on too much risk.
Well I ,think that strategy is, in part, connected with
what had been a mantra at Boeing for some years,
including at IDS where you were leading, which was
that Boeing was shifting towards large scale systems
integration.
Right. It was a little different at IDS. You see, we -
yeah, complex large scale systems integration is what
9
10
this company does. At IDS, this whole idea of best of
11
industry and being the integrator was not an act of
12
inspiration, it was an act of desperation, in that we
13
didn't have any verticals. We weren't vertically
14
integrated to begin with. And that was a strategy that
15
we put together, because we had no other at our
16
disposal, other than to go out and buy a bunch of
17
companies to get vertically integrated. I think the
18
difference over here is they started off being
19
reasonably vertically integrated and moved up the
20
value chain. And I think in hindsight, we probably
21
moved up a little too far.
22
Well some people definitely saw that, if we can find
23
ourselves just speaking about BCA, saw this strategy
24
as a move away from the actual building of the
25
airplane towards a more architectural, conceptual
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009405
26
approach early in the stages, deciding the - doing the
marketing analysis, deciding on the market_
3
4
Yeah.
_and architecting it. And of course, final assembling
it, but final assembly was relegated to a snap-
together airplane in theory.
Yeah.
At least it hasn't worked out quite like that, but -
8
9
but the actual building of the airplanes here in Puget
10
Sound factories was something that was less important
11
it was work that seemed to be designated lower level
12
work that others could do. Is that the way it goes in
13
future or is that_
1 4 A
You see,
15
You know, my view is there is certain things that you
16
have to keep within your company, you know, those
17
pieces of intellectual p r o p e r t y t h a t n o b o d y e l s e i n
18
the world understands or knows how to do. And those
19
are things, both from a manufacturing and design
20
standpoint, that you need to keep inside. And then
21
there are other things, seats, galleys, some of the -
22
much of the machining, you know, anybody can do those
23
things. But, you know, why do people come to you? They
24
come to you because you understand things better than
25
anybody in the world understands about airplanes. And
I - you know, I would not subscribe to that.
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009406
27
we need to define what those things are, and we need
to hold those things very close. You know, the other
issue that I feel pretty strongly about is if all
you're doing is systems integration then how do you
train the engineers of the future to be systems
integrators? And I think engineers need to come in and
design something. They need to design a part. They
need to see how a part goes into a subsystem, how a
subsystem goes into a system, and how systems of
10
systems interact. You have to have some degree of
11
basic design so you can train the systems integrators
12
of the future.
13
And too much of out that the engineers here didn't
14
have enough to do. So the things you want to protect
15
include the wings?
16
I think that we understand how to build wings as well
17
as anybody in the world, and I think we're
18
demonstrating that on the 737 program where, you know,
19
we're building, what, I guess 62 wings a month. That's
20
pretty good production.
2 1
All right, good. Well the question about your own
22
taking over at BCA. It seems to me, looking on from
23
the outside, that you have approached your job, your
24
new job, eager to shake things up. After some months
25
of review, you had a major management shuffle of
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009407
28
putting different people in different places. You
organized your management retreat and got everybody on
the same page. So I'm just wondering, it does seem
that you are, in some sense, about change. And what
needed changing and what's ahead?
Well I guess first of all, I didn't see that - that
management shake-up that we had as being, you know,
that dramatic. You know, what did we do? We formed an
organization called, you know, Program Management to
10
ensure that we bring the program management and
11
execution discipline necessary to all the programs.
12
And we put them under Howard Chambers, somebody that's
13
been doing development programs for 40 years. I also
14
had a view that we were focused a lot on 787 and 747,
15
and appropriately so. But at the same time, I had a
16
view that we had to be thinking, you know, longer
17
term. You know, what do we need to do on the single
18
isle airplanes? What do we need to do in terms of
19
upgrading the 777 or a brand new 777-size airplanes?
20
And that's why I asked Mike Bair to go focus on the
21
new single isle airplane or an upgraded 737. And you
22
say why Mike? Well, you know, Mike got the
23
configuration of 787 correct, and he's very good at
24
that, and he's very analytical in his thinking. And I
25
know that the decision we make on the 37 will be the
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009408
29
right one. And then we took Lars Anderson and talked
him into coming out of retirement and asked Lars to
focus on the 777 next generation or a new 300 to 400
seat airplane. And Lars was good enough to come out of
retirement to do that. So I would say this
reorganization was really about finding the future,
but also bringing more discipline to how we executive
existing programs. Most of the key players and the
program managers, they didn't change. We had a couple
10
of people retire, so we moved some people around. But
11
I would not call that a major, major change in the
12
organization, other than the focus on the future and
13
the program management discipline. You know, on the
14
off-site - and I'm a new guy on the block and I felt
15
that, you know, the whole team, all the executives,
16
needed to understand what I thought was important. And
17
what I tried to achieve from that meeting was to get
18
alignment of the entire staff on where we needed to
19
go, what the challenges were, what the issues were,
20
and what we all needed to do together. And, you know,
21
there really are only four things. I try to keep
22
things pretty simple for the team. What we have to do
23
is we've got to continue to add value to our
24
customers, that's why they keep coming back. We need
25
to find the future for the Boeing Company. We need to
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009409
30
develop the leadership team of the future. And we need
to meet the plan. And those are the four things that
we talked about.
The appointment of Howard Chambers to oversee program
management that's specifically, I think, just to
manage projects - it does seem that that's the
perception is Boeing has failed in that here over a
couple of y e a r s _
_and they haven't kept control of the programs.
1 0 Q
11
You see, I_
Yeah, it's interesting. I think that B C A i s
12
extraordinary in their ability to manage production
13
programs. And I don't think anybody, you know, manages
14
a supply chain as well as they do. And just the fact
15
that we're doing 31.5 737s a month and we set a record
16
last year with 88 777s being delivered. We do a great
17
job of program management on production programs. I
18
think the issue was on the development programs, the
19
fact that we hadn't done a major development program
20
in a long, long time and the fact that a lot of the
21
people that had, had retired. And some of the
22
decisions we made on the program were business driven
23
as opposed to being driven by - you know, by the
24
engineering community. And we just took on too much
25
risk.
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009410
_ 31
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jim,
you might also want to
contrast the difference between all the many, many programs
at IDS.
Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:
And the program management is
really just another function and discipline.
Yeah. At IDS, we had 300 programs. And the vast
majority of the programs are development programs. You
know, an ABL program, that's all it is, is a
10
development program. The Space Station was a
11
development program that went for 10 years. The
12
Ground-based Midcourse Missile Defense Program is a
13
test bed, became a development program, and finally
14
we're installing it. But, you know, how you do program
15
management and development programs is something that
16
Howard understands very well, and I think I understand
17
pretty well. And we're trying to bring many of those
18
disciplines to the BCA side. At the same time, we're
19
trying to bring a lot of the talents that BCA has,
20
relative to supply chain management, in over to the
21
IDS side. So, I mean, there's great synergy within
22
this company. And, you know, one of things that I hope
23
to achieve being over here is to encourage even more
24
of that.
2 5 Q
You've talked about potential competitors in the
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009411
32
future. I'd like to move on and talk about China. I
believe you're making a second trip to China or have
you just made it?
I think I'm going the last week of this month. Yeah.
That's your second trip, right?
Yeah.
6
7
So I find it interesting, Boeing, like the United
States itself, has an ambivalent view of China's
enormous growth. It's often portrayed as a potential
10
massive market. It's also portrayed as a potential
11
threat. And when you were head of the defense side of
12
Boeing, perhaps you had to view China one way. But now
13
you're head of BCA and you're making trips to China to
14
sell airplanes. So, you know, recently the U.S. sold
15
arms to Taiwan, which resulted in a threat from China
16
to boycott any companies involved, including Boeing
17
had a small part in that, the missiles.
1 8
Yeah.
1 9
Then last week there was a Wall Street Journal piece
20
saying that we should build more F-22s, which of
21
course Boeing builds a big part of here in Seattle,
22
because of the potential threat from China one day. So
23
the question is how do you, in the position you're in
24
now, how do you handle this complex relationship
25
between the U.S. and China and between Boeing and
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009412
33
1
2
China?
Well and I'll tell you, there's not a lot that the
Boeing Company can do about the relationship between
China and the United States. I mean the decision to
sell arms was country to country. It was not a
decision that the Boeing Company, in any way, you
know, got involved in. I think the only thing that I
can do is try to be the best customer to the Chinese
airlines and the best partner to some of the joint
10
ventures that we have in China that we can be. And I
11
don't worry a lot about things I can't control. What I
12
can control is the relationship that we have with the
13
airlines in China. And we're going to work very hard
14
on those. You know, China is going to have a GDP as
15
big as ours, you know, within the next 20 years. It's
16
an economy that is going to need airplanes. They're
17
developing 34 new airports right now, large airports.
18
And we're developing one here in the United States.
19
They're going to be buying about 200 airplanes a year
20
21
for the next 20 years. It's a big market for us.
They're going to be building their own airplanes. And
22
I have full confidence that they'll build a very good
23
airplane. Maybe not the first time, but eventually
24
they'll get it right. And I spent a lot of time in the
25
space business so I know that going to outer space is
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009413
34
a difficult thing. You've got to go from zero to
22,000 feet in 8.5 minutes - 22,000 feet per second in
8.5 minutes. They did it a lot faster than anybody
thought they could. They have made a national
commitment to building commercial airplanes. They're
going to invest billions of dollars in developing that
capability. They have, you know, many, many times as
many engineers coming out of their colleges as we do.
And they're going to develop a good airplane over
10
time. So, you know, we have to - we have to figure
11
out, and we're working very hard on, what kind of a
12
relationship do we want to have with industry over
13
there and what kind of relationship do we want to have
14
with the airlines in China.
15
And so how much of a threat is the C-919 narrow body
16
jetliner that they're developing? It's supposed to be,
17
I think, 180 seats approximately. It's supposed to
18
enter service in 2016. How big a threat is that to
19
B o e i n g ? ,
20
Well, they're going to put some of the new engines on
21
them and, you know, they're more efficient engines.
22
And assuming they get the airplane right, and it
23
probably won't be, you know, perfect the first time
24
through, they could have an airplane that competes
25
with the 737, yes.
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009414
35
And what do you do about that?
Well we need to do several things about it. You know,
one - you know, the Boeing Company gets a premium for
the airplanes that they sell. And we get a premium on
the airplanes that we sell, because we create value
for our customer. And that's one of the assignments
that Mike Bair has. You know, what does the next
generation 737 or the next generation single isle
airplane look like? Is it a re-engined 37 next
10
generation or is it a brand new airplane? And we are
11
actively looking at both of those options right now.
12
And we are looking at, you know, having a capability,
13
you know, towards the end of this decade. And it's not
14
just the Chinese. It's also the Canadians with the C
15
Series. It's also Embraer who will have an airplane.
16
And potentially the Russians as well.
17
So where do you stand on this? As part of the national
18
debate, I think people would be interested to know
19
what a chief executive of Boeing thinks in terms of
20
this threat or market, which is China to the U.S.? Is
21
it a military threat or is it a vast market we need to
22
tap into?
23
You're not going to get the head of commercial
24
airplanes talking about China's military threat, you
25
know, Dominique. I'll leave - again, I'll leave that
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009415
36
to the people in the Pentagon, and I'll leave that to
the policymakers in Washington, D.C. You know, you
' think about China and the United States, you know, our
economies are dependent on each other now, and will be
for the long haul. And you look at how far this
relationship has come, you know, over the last - I
guess it's 35 years since Nixon first went over there.
And I think, you know, every day, you know, we get
closer and closer together and our economies get more
10
tightly entwined. It's not to say that we don't have
11
the periodic bump in the road. And, yes, we're having
12
one of those right now. But I think there's a lot to
13
be lost on both sides if we don't have a good
14
relationship with China. And I think that China has a
15
lot of lose if they don't have a good relationship
16
with the United States.
17
You know, Bill Boeing's first engineer was Chinese
18
born, Wong Tsoo. And it's been noted before that for a
19
global company, Boeing's executive ranks don't - have
20
a surprising lack of diversity. Now I look, for
21
example, at your Indian operations and I see the
22
success Dinesh Keskar has had there, an Indian-born
23
executive and president of BCA in India. But I don't
24
see that in China. There's very few Chinese-American
25
executives, which is a little surprising given that
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009416
37
we're in Seattle, we're on the Pacific Rim_
1
2
Yeah.
_and we've got a great Asian-American community here.
And think of the cultural impact of Gary Locke, the
governor of Washington, going to China trying to help
sell Boeing airplanes. How come you don't have more
such faces?
Stay tuned. You'll be the first person we call, okay?
And it won't be long and we'll give you a call.
9
10
Okay, thanks. We're running out of time so a few
11
important topics to cover. One of them is tanker. You
12
and other Boeing executives have talked about the
13
unique Boeing advantage of building both commercial
14
platforms and the military systems and how you
15
leveraged that. You did it for the Poseidon and_
1 6 A
Yeah.
17
...(indiscernible) that's built in Renton. So you
18
installed all the military's hardware inline on
19
(indiscernible) assembly.
2 0 A
Yeah.
2 1 Q
Is that what's going to happen on tanker, if you win
22
it? Will you do that in Everett?
2 3 A
We will do as much as we can in Everett. We'll make
24
all the structural modifications that we can. We'll
25
install some of the mission-specific equipment that we
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009417
38
need to make it a tanker. But the hoses and the drogs
(ph) and the bladders, some of those things will be
installed in Wichita. But as much as we can install
up-front inline, you know, that will drive the cost of
doing business down. And that's what we plan on doing.
Well the tanker RFP that just came out, in the
estimation of outside observers, puts you in the
favored position to win that.
You know, I'm very intrigued by that. You know, it's
10
very hard to write an RFP for dissimilar airplanes.
11
And I think the U.S. Air Force did a pretty good job
12
of doing that. I mean there are things in that RFP
13
that we don't like. And, you know, I understand from
14
what I read in the paper, there are things that
15
Northrop doesn't like. But it's not a perfect RFP for
16
either one of us and they are puts and takes for both.
17
You know, I read that thing and, you know, I don't
18
read it as a lay-down hand for the Boeing Company. And
19
I'm assuming that (indiscernible) is going to bid.
20
Well is there any sense of embarrassment at the
21
company that should you win it this time, you've done
22
it by a political backlash that caused them to rerun
23
the competition?
24
25
I guess I don't understand. I don't think that there's
political backlash that caused this thing to be re-
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009418
39
competed. I think the GAO took a look at the decision
making process and felt that there were errors in how
they came to the decision they came to. I mean let's
reviefa the - let's review the tape here. We had 98
strengths, they had 30. We had one weakness, they had
five. There was no credit to be given for fuel offload
above a certain threshold level, they were given that.
And the GAO looked at the decision making process and
it was flawed. That's why they're doing the re-
10
11
compete. It has nothing to do with politics.
back as early as the early 2000s, were_
12
13
But the Congressional support that you have - you, way
You know, I appreciate Congressional support. But I
14
don't think there's been a competition that I've been
15
involved in, in my career, that has been decided by
16
people on Capitol Hill. It gets decided by the
17
procurement people in the Pentagon based on their RFP.
18
And where they don't make their decision based on the
19
RFP,
20
protest, which we did, and in which we do v e r y
21
infrequently. And they found in our favor.
22
you know, companies have the opportunity to
One political issue that's come into the whole tanker
debate is WTO, and I'd like to go to that now.
23
24
Yeah.
25
The WTO finder was guilty of taking illegal subsidies.
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009419
40
And an outcome in the European countersuit is expected
this summer, which could find you similarly liable,
maybe, maybe no. But what I want to ask you is this.
Embraer and Bombardier went through this whole thing,
suing each other at the WTO, for illegal government
loan subsidies. They were both found guilty and it
didn't change a thing. Nothing happened. And, you
know, Bombardier is making the C Series now and
they're getting government money to help do it. So
10
what's the point? Where can these WTO suits go?
11 A
Well, you know, first of all you've got to remember,
12
Dominique, that we didn't bring the WTO suit. The
13
Administration of the United States of American
14
brought that suit.
15
They wouldn't have done so if you didn't want it.
16
They brought the suit because, in their view, the
17
United States and its industries had been damaged by
18
illegal subsidies that were in violation of the W T O
19
rules. I mean that's why the lawsuit was brought. And
20
clearly the Administration feels that those subsidies
21
were illegal. And the WTO feels the same way, at least
22
that's their - the preliminary judgment that they've
23
laid down.
24
Well certainly some people see it as politics_
25
Well_
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009420
41
tanker.
2
3
_to block - in part, it helps to try to block the
So, you know, we're building the 787 the old fashioned
way. We're using our own money. On the A-330, you
know, based on the WTO case, you know, they had launch
subsidies of close to $6 billion. You know, that's a
significant advantage for them that we don't enjoy.
You know, we have to cover our own costs. And, you
know, we would have like to have seen something in the
10
RFP that accommodated the launch subsidies that they
11
got. It's not there. And we're competing. We're not
12
crying foul. We're going to do the best we can with
13
the proposal.
14
Do you have any expectation about the outcome of the
15
countersuit, which is pending this summer, where
16
B o e i n g is accused of illegal subsidies (indiscernible
17
18
interrupted)?
Based on everything I know, I feel pretty good about
19
the outcome. Of course then again, Dominique, I
20
thought we were going to win the tanker contest last
21
time. As I've told people, there's only one more - one
22
person more surprised that we lost the tanker than me
23
and that was (indiscernible) that they won.
24
25
You mentioned earlier in this conversation that being
number two in a duopoly puts you in last place and you
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009421
42
don't want to be in last place. So since we're
discussing this rivalry with Airbus, where do you see
that - how do you see that playing out in the next few
years?
When we start delivering the 787s in quantity, and
that's going to star in 2012, 2013, you know, we
should, you know, take the number one position, you
know, relative to airplane deliveries. We ought to
overtake them in 2012, 2013, that timeframe. But I
10
think, you know, longer term, it's easy to get the
11
most orders and it's easy to make the most deliveries.
12
All you have to do is just give the airplanes away.
13
We're not going to do that. If I look at, you know, 10
14
years from now, we're going to have a brand new 47;
15
we're going to have a brand new 87; we're going to
16
have a major upgrade of the 737 or a new small
17
airplane; and we're going to have a major upgrade to
18
the 777 or we're going to have a new 300 to 400
19
passenger airplane. I mean we're going to have a whole
20
new set of products in the marketplace. And these are
21
products that are going to create great value for our
22
customer. And when you create value for the customer,
23
you're going to sell airplanes. And we should be
24
number one for a long time to come. And you know why
25
we're going to be number one? It's because of those
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009422
43
75,000 people here in Puget Sound that get up in the
morning and put their badge on and walk through the
doors. I mean those are the people that make it
happen. And I could go tomorrow, and they could
replace me pretty quick. But it's the collective
knowledge of our team that allows us to do the things
that we do. And they're the ones that will make it
happen.
There's an expectation of restraint today in corporate
lo
executive bonuses. Boeing -- a lot of B o e i n g ' s m o n e y ,
11
half of its revenues, comes from the government. And
12
you're laying off thousands of people right now, but
13
you got a special $3 million bonus on top of your
14
regular bonus for staying - for switching jobs. How is
15
that justified (indiscernible - interrupted).
16
No, they didn't make me any promises when I came here.
17
And I didn't ask the Board of the Comp Committee for
18
this. And I certainly appreciate, you know, what
19
they've done, but it's not something that I asked them
20
to do. And, you know, I do intend to continue to work
21
here as long as the company will let me stay.
22
Do you understand why it doesn't look good to workers
23
getting laid off when executives get million-dollar
24
bonuses?
25
Well my job is to make sure that workers don't get
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009423
44
laid off. I mean I think that I've got an unwritten
bond with the employees that my job is to profitably
grow this place. And at the same time I'm asking them
to be more efficient, that allows us to sell our
planes for less, that allows us to sell more planes,
that allows us to create jobs or at least keep the
level of jobs at the same number that it's at today.
And that's what I think my job is.
Okay. I'm going to stop there.
10
Okay.
11
Thank you very much.
12
All right, Dominique. Thanks.
13
(End of proceeding.)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009424
45
TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
I, Gloria Schein, hereby certify that the foregoing
pages numbered 2 through 44 are a true, accurate and
complete transcript of Interview of Jim Albaugh, transcribed
by me from a copy of the digital sound recording to the best
of my knowledge and ability.
Date
Gloria Schein
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009425
10
11
INTERVIEW OF
12
JIM ALBAUGH
13
14
BY
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009426
(Beg inning
of proceedin gs.)
But, y ou know, I feel impelled to ask some hard
questions on behalf of basicall y

the communit y in
Washin g ton_
Sure.
_as a result of last y ear. Last y ear, we had the
And then subse quentl y , y ou announced that all 787 work
10
from the Pu get Sound area would be duplicated
11
elsewhere. So I think the local communit y

is clearl y
12
worried about Boein g 's future here. And that's
13
somethin g
that's followed on from, y ou know, y ou moved
14
the headq uarters in 2001 and there have been repeated
15
threats that future work mi ght not be here. So last
16
-y ear seemed to reall y

increase that feelin g . So what
17
18
19
20
is Boein g 's commitment to Washin g ton state?
Well this is the head quarters of Boein g

Commercial
Aircraft and it will be, I think, for probabl y
forever. T
Was reall y
about, y ou
21
en sue production stabilit'Y,and,how
22
we coli14 ensure that we wer e .competitiveover the lon g
23
haul : A n d w e h a d ' s o m e v e r y 'ProductiedisCussions With
24
the
And unfortunately ,
dn't corit6 O
an a greement wher e we f elt we could ensure

production
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009427
s ta b ility . A n d re a d th a t is
-
g e ttin g a w a y fro m
fre q u e n t 'strik e S ' th a t we w e re h a v in g a n d a lso C :o u ld
s to p th e ra te o f e s c a la tio n
c o u ld n o t 'g e t to a ,lilfa b e w h e re
w in fo r b o th
d e c ia iO n 'to ,.
w ill te ll y o u , D o m in iq u e , y o u k n o w m y p re fe re n c e is to
d o th e w o rk h e re in th e fu tu re . B u t
th e
of:y ag eS ".' 'A n d W e ju st
as a
'b b th fe lt
a n d th e u n io n ,-:so w e m ai
C h a re sto n 2 ; N o w it's m y h o p e , a n d I
Work h ere
e c a n m a k e su re th a t w e h a v e th e sta b ility
we
th e
10
p ro d u c tio n lin e s,a n d th a t
11
th e lo n g :h au l'. - A n d th ciae'iare th e tw o th ah 4 S 'y ,:th at
12
th in k
13
h av e
14
C om pany.
15 . Q
S o lo o k in g o u t in to th e fu tu re , n o w th a t y o u h a v e
16
d e c id e d o n h a v in g th is o th e r p la n t in C h a rle sto n , h o w
17
d o y o u se e th e g e o g ra p h ic sh a p e o f B o e in g a n d th e
18
b a la n c e th e re b e tw e e n th o se tw o b ic o a sta l p la n ts in
19
th e fu tu re ?
20
b e C o m p e titiv e ;o v e r
cu sto th era, 'arid '
O'"ensui.e,
a lso , th e sto c k h o ld e # s - o f'th e B o e in g
W e ll I g u e s s I d o n 't re a lly s e e it a s a b a la n c e . Y o u
21
k n o w , c le a rly th e c e n te r o f g ra v ity is h e re in P u g e t
22
S o u n d a n d w ill c o n tin u e to b e h e re in P u g e t S o u n d . A n d
23
I'm
24
d isc u ssio n s w ith th e u n io n th a t, y o u k n o w , w e 'll b e
25
a b le to c o m e u p w ith w a y s o f b e in g c o m p e titiv e h e re ,
v e ry h o p e fu l a s w e , y o u k n o w , c o n tin u e to h a v e
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009428
and we can come up with ways of ensuring that we're
through those two hurdles, we're going to be doing
discussions of moving any work that's currently here
out of Puget Sound.
Right. But, of course, it's future work that people
10
Yeah. I'll tell you, the commitment that I can give
11
12
here. But we have to ensure ourselves that we're going
13
14
15
Y o u know, if we don't, we're not going to be selling
16
any airplanes. And I think that's the worst outcome
17
for Puget Sound, and that's the worst outcome for the
18
company.
19
Well so when the time comes to a n n o u n c e the launch of
20
21
years, that you would say - right, you're going to
22
23
we going - are the people of this state once again
24
25
U.S.
to win it?
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009429
competition.
2
3
You know, I guess I don't really view it as a
I don't think it was. It was not a competition. What
it was, was - again, we've had strikes three out of
the last four times we've had a labor negotiation with
the IAM. And I'm not blaming that on the IAN. I mean
10
improve the relationship that we have. And we've got
11
12
that every three years they're not going to have a
13
14
now that are telling us that in contracts they don't
15
16
that's not a situation that's good for us. It's not a
17
good situation for them. It's not a good situation for
18
labor. And if one projects out another 15 years, we're
19
20
we'll be competing against the Europeans, the
21
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009430
1
2
to compete.
In saying that it wasn't a competition, clearly you're
referring to the Charleston decision last year. But I
Yeah. Well I wasn't involved in that one and-
10
I don't think I would - if I'm involved, I'm not going
11
to have a competition like that, I can tell you that.
12
13
14
15
16
17
in the airplanes.
18
Just on the - to dwell on the Charleston expansion for
19
20
expense and risk attached to doing all that there is -
21
is something that's hard to justify. Does it really
22
23
Yeah. There's no question that whenever you go to a
24
green field site, there's risk involved. At the same
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009431
a.
back last - I guess it was the fall of 2008, I mean
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And, Jim, the flip side of that
9 Sound.
10
Yeah, absolutely. Again, my first - my first
11
12
13
14
manufacturing and how could we ensure that labor costs
15
weren't going to continue to escalate.
16
Do you think a chance was missed to - I mean you had a
17
18
strike.
19
Yeah.
20
You had a big relationship with the union problem.
21
22
2 3
Yeah. You know_
24
2 5
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009432
we're going to do everything we can to work with the
union to make sure that we don't have another
relationship with the union where we don't have to
magicians. They do things that I don't think any labor
10
11
12
now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now. But we're
13
not - none of us are going to have jobs if we continue
14
15
you know, every three years.
16
S o t o sum up the Charleston decision.- let's be clear,
17
the Charleston decision, it wasn't about Washington's
18
19
It was not.
20
21
22
It...
23
24
25
commit
to deliver airplanes on certain dates that we
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009433
actually do deliver. And we have lost - our customers
after.
Well let's just move on to talk about the union in a
9
10
11
Poseidon (indiscernible - interrupted)-
12
Yeah, yeah.
13
_you talked about, you praised the men and women of
14
15
Yep. They're fabulous.
16
17
that was in July. And then in the fall - it seemed
18
like a slap in the face to the people here to .say well
19
we're going to build it somewhere - we're going to
20
21
Yeah, you see, I guess I don't see it as a slap in the
22
face, Dominique. I mean I think that if we don't have
23
a company, nobody has jobs. And if we can't meet the
24
25
of aircraft, we're not going to be in the business. If
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009434
10
than the competition, we're not going to be selling
Charleston, you know, I believe that we're going to
10
, average unit price of an airplane should go down as a
11
12
13
Charleston.
14
But is
how big a component of that average cost of
15
an airplane is actually labor? It's not a big chunk of
16
it, is it?
1 7
It's not a big chunk. It's - and I'm not going to give
18
you the exact percentage. It's a significant
19
percentage. It's less than half, certainly.
20
21
22
business plans based on assuming they're going to get
23
delivery on certain dates, and when they don't get
24
25
But again,
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009435
11
competitive world we're in, much more competitive than
it's been to date. And we've enjoyed a duopoly here.
you know, when you're in a duopoly as we are, and
you're in second place, you're in last place. I don't
10
11
failure to reach agreement resulting in that decision_
12
13
And blame that on both of us, the fact that we didn't
get there.
14
15
Well just forgetting about blame, I'm wondering - well
16
let me ask about - first of all, what is your attitude
17
to unions?
18
I've always gotten along great with unions. I've
19
worked with them. I've walked the concrete with them.
20
I've listened to them. I've watched them do, you know,
21
amazing things relative to productivity. I've seen
22
23
24
25
777 where they're making huge strides relative to
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009436
12
1
2
productivity.
Well that's the workforce. But the union itself,
You know, where there's a - where there is an issue
with the union, it's - that's a reflection on
10
11
12
with some of the leadership of the IAN. And we have
13
14
forward, I hope there's more things we agree on,
15
16
shape unless we're selling airplanes.
17
18
19
Well but given what happened last year, I mean you're
20
21
Yeah.
22
And you've got all the - you've got the poison that
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
.
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009437
13
the IAM understands that we're entering a global
economy, global competition. It's going to be more
promises that we make to our customers - I mean those
not we have a company and whether or not we're selling
10
11
Well obviously you'd like a better relationship with
12
IAM, and you would hope to achieve it. But does the
13
14
15
to be cheaper?
16
17
here. You look at all the tooling that we've invested
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can't continue to go up at the dramatic fashion we
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009438
14
have in the past.
I'd also like to point to certain irony. The tanker
competition is (indiscernible) now and you've got
We do.
7
8
Yeah.
10
paying American jobs, they're contrasting it to non-
11
12
Congressional support largely - well not just the
13
union, but there's a big element_
1 4 A
Yeah.
1 5 Q
_that they - those Democratic politicians who are
16
union supported, that's a big element. And so the
17
18
the union?
1 9 A
We've got 60,000 - no, we've got 75,000 jobs here in
20
Puget Sound. And we're going to have, you know, tens
21
of thousands of jobs for years to come. we're talking
22
2 3 '
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009439
15
that this is the center of gravity. And that's not
going to change. Now the 767 airplane, in i t s
10
the future, what we've already - you've agreed with me
11
that the business climate here wasn't a particular
12
13
14
downturn, are in terrible financial trouble
15
16
17
18
in terms of...
1 9 A
20
21
22
Right.
23
B u t again, the overriding factor was not the business
24
climate, and it was not the wages we're paying people
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009440
16
company.
You're on the company's executive consult. There is
9
10
11
12
that decision?
13
14
15
16
17
two things that I needed, as I mentioned, and we
18
couldn't get those two things done. And not getting
19
those two
20
21
Charleston.
22
25
done, 1 made the recommendation, that
last question.
23
24
th in g s
Dominique.
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009441
17
So there are - there has been talk here for many
Boeing doesn't like us anymore. Can we - as a final
question on that topic, is that - put a nail in that?
You can put that one to bed. I mean we've got, you
know, a terrific workforce here. We've got, you know,
of knowledge about building airplanes - more than any
place that I've ever been. We've got a talented
10
11
know, want to live. This is where we want to be. We've
12
13
and I hope it's one that continues for a long, long
14
time to come. Again, I preface it by - or I caveat it
15
16
17
18
19
20
rosier?
21
I sure hope it does. That's - you know, I'm going to
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009442
18
Joe Sutter, (indiscernible - interrupted)_
Yeah.
Yep.
_people associated with the old style of Boeing.
10
leaders to - in a move that was spun as harking back
11
to the early days of - when (indiscernible) companies
12
13
Yep.
14
SO I want to ask you. I mean, you're an engineer.
15
Yeah.
16
reinstate the primacy of engineering within B C A ?
17
18
19
engineering and less by the - what I'll call the
20
21
22
23
outsourcing decisions were - we did not consider the
24
extent - the risk that we'd take on by going outside.
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009443
19
You know, bringing the senior advisory group in - a
think, right after - you know, 2000, 2001, because
they didn't see us developing any new programs. And we
know, going into the 787 program, we didn't have a
10
11
12
about 747 and the 787 is we're training a whole new
13
14
15
16
those icons of the Boeing company, we're getting the
17
18
experience. And they're people that I listen to.
19
They're people I want to get my team in front of so
20
21
benefit of the things that they've done right and the
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009444
20
the chief engineer. You didn't do anything without
getting the chief engineer on board. And if you didn't
engineer - into engineering does that.
10
11
12
13
14
Yeah. Well_
15
adversarial with
16
17
SPEEA?
Yeah, well, you know, I don't have all the history.
18
You probably know more about it than I do, Dominique,
19
but, you know, this place doesn't run without
20
engineers and it doesn't run without machinists. And I
21
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009445
21
I've sat down with our new chief of engineering, you
those things? What is that IP that we're going to do
hold close? The flight controls, you know, never
The fuselage, the composites, don't outsource those.
10
11
12
do. And those things that we need to do to hold onto'
13
14
15
union of SPEEA and the IAN union, what are those
16
17
outsource too much.
18
Yeah, well that's - I definitely want to talk about
19
20
wings. But isn't it too late? You've already
21
22
Well we have. Well, we'll build other airplanes.
23
24
25
Well I didn't say that. I didn't say that. Those are
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009446
22
1
2
Okay. Well actually you and Mr. McNerney have - you've
And what you've said is you're going to draw the lines
differently. And that's the phrase that you used.
6
7
Yeah.
And I'm wondering if you could just elaborate a little
understand it's already happening with the 787-9, the
1(:)
11
12
mean the wings are still being made in Japan.
13
Yeah.
14
15
16
interface. We didn't provide enough oversight to the
17
18
engineering and manufacturing. On the -9, we've pulled
19
20
21
22
Right.
23
So we now have control of some of the fuselage of the
24
25
and the -9. Those lines that we're going to have to
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009447
23
redraw, we're in the process of redrawing those right
And we're in the process of defining those strategies
right now.
Mitsubishi build the wings in J a p a n , but you had them
10
11
I believe it is. It's not the same wing. The new wing
12
is - it's the same length, but it's a stiffer wing and
13
it's got - carries more load. So it's a different
14
wing. I think that they're still doing the wing design
15
16
17
18
admission that it didn't work very well and that you
19
20
21
22
We paid for it. .
23
You've had two years' delay. So isn't that an argument
24
for - there's some surprise that despite that, Boeing
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009448
24
model is the one for the future. You'll draw the lines
slightly differently, but you'll stick to that model.
Why when it didn't work so well?
Well_
I mean it's really easy in hindsight to second guess
10
that's very efficient. This is going to be an airplane
11
12
13
14
15
people that didn't have a lot of experience at it. We
16
didn't provide them the kind of oversight and support
17
18
19
better going forward? W e l l a g a i n , w e ' r e g o i n g t o
20
21
22
23
24
25
more - but I think that if you talk to me, if you talk
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009449
25
to Jim McNerney, we'll both say that we moved up the
Well I think that strategy is, in part, connected with
including at IDS where you were leading, which was .
integration.
Right. It was a little different at IDS. You see, we -
9
10
thiS company does. At IDS, this whole idea of best of
11
12
13
didn't have any verticals. We weren't vertically
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Well some people definitely saw.that, if we can find
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009450
26
approach early in the stages, deciding the - doing the
marketing analysis, deciding on the market_
Yeah.
_and architecting it. And of course, final assembling
Yeah.
At least it hasn't worked out quite like that, but -
9
10
11
7 ,
12
13
future or is that...
1 4 A
You see, I - you know, I would not subscribe to that.
15
16
17
pieces of intellectual property that nobody else in
18
19
20
21
there are other things, seats, galleys, some of the -
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009451
27
you're doing is systems integration then how do you
10
11
12
of the future.
13
And too much of out that the engineers here didn't
14
15
include the wings?
16
17
as anybody in the world, and I think we're
18
19
we're building, what, I guess 62 wings a m o n t h . T h a t ' s
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009452
28
the same page. So I'm just wondering, it does seem
needed changing and what's ahead?
Well I guess first of all, I didn't see that - that
10
11
12
And we put them under Howard Chambers, somebody that's
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
upgrading the 777 or a brand new 777 s i z e a i r p l a n e s ?
20
And that's why I asked Mike Bair to go focus on the
21
22
23
configuration of 787 correct, and he's very good at
24
that, and he's very analytical in his thinking. And I
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009453
29
program managers, they didn't change. We had a couple
10
11
12
13
14
off-site - and I'm a new guy on the block and I felt
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
is we've got to continue to add value to our
24
customers, that's why they keep coming back. We need
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009454
30
'
1
we talked about.
management that's specifically, I think, just to
manage projects - it does seem that that's the
couple of years_
You see, I-
_and they haven't kept control of the programs.
11
Yeah, it's interesting. I think that BCA is
12
13
programs. And I don't think anybody, you know, manages
14
15
that we're doing 31.5 737s a month and we set a record
16
17
18
19
fact that we hadn't done a major development program
20
21
22
23
as opposed to being driven by - you know, by the
24
25
risk.
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009455
31
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE Jim,
you might also want to
at IDS
Yeah
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE
And the program management is
really just another function and discipline
Yeah At IDS, we had 300 programs And the vast
majority of the programs are development programs You
know, an A B L program, that's all it is, is a
10
development program The Space Station was a
11
development program that went for 10 years The
12
13
14
we're installing it But, you know, how you do program
15
16
17
pretty well And we're trying to bring many of those
18
disciplines to the BCA side At the same time,
19
20
21
IDS side So, I mean, there's great synergy within
22
this company And, you know, one of things that I hope
23
24
of that
25
we're
Y o u ' v e talked about potential competitors in the
KRON ASSOCIATES
1113 W Fireweed Lane Suite 200
Anchorage Alaska 99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009456
32
future. I'd like to move on and talk about China. I
believe you're making a second trip to China or have
you just made i t ?
I think I'm going the last week of this month. Yeah.
That's your second trip, right?
Yeah.
States itself, has an ambivalent view of China's
enormous growth. It's often portrayed as a potential
10
massive market. It's also portrayed as a potential
11
12
13
you're head of BCA and you're making trips to China to
14
15
16
17
18
Yeah.
19
20
21
22
23
the question is how do you, in the position you're in
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009457
33
1
2
China?
Well and I'll tell you, there's not a lot that the
know,
got involved in. I think the only thing that I
10
11
don't worry a lot about things I can't control. What I
12
13
airlines in China. And we're going to work very hard
14
15
big as ours, you know, within the next 20 years. It's
16
an economy that is going to need airplanes. They're
17
18
And we're developing one here in the United States.
19
They're going to be buying about 200 airplanes a year
20
for the next 20 years. It's a big market for us.
21
They're going to be building their own airplanes. And
22
I have full confidence that they'll build a very good
23
24
they'll get it right. And I spent a lot of time in the
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009458
34
a difficult thing. You've got to go from zero to
22,000 feet in 8.5 minutes - 22,000 feet per second in
commitment to building commercial airplanes. They're
And they're going to develop a good airplane over
10
time. So, you know, we have to - we have to figure
11
out, and we're working very hard on, what kind of a
12
13
14
15
16
jetliner that they're developing? It's supposed to be,
17
I think, 180 seats approximately. It's supposed to
18
19
Boeing?
20
Well, they're going to put some of the new engines on
21
them and, you know, they're more efficient engines.
22
23
probably won't be, you know, perfect the first time
24
25
with the 737, yes.
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009459
35
one - you know, the Boeing Company gets a premium for
for our customer. And that's one of the assignments
10
11
12
13
you know, towards the end of this decade. And it's not
14
just the Chinese. It's also the Canadians with the C
15
Series.
16
17
It's also Embraer who will have an airplane.
18
19
20
21
22
tap into?
23
You're not going to get the head of commercial
24
airplanes talking about China's military threat, you
25
know, Dominique. I'll leave - again, I'll leave that
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009460
36
to the people in the Pentagon, and I'll leave that to
the policymakers in Washington, D C You know, you
think about China and the United States, you know, our
for the long haul And you look at how far this
relationship has come, you know, over the last - I
guess it's 35 years since Nixon first went over there
10
tightly entwined It's not to say that we don't have
11
the periodic bump in the road And, yes, we're having
12
one of those right now But I think there's a lot to
13
be lost on both sides if we don't have a good
14
relationship with China And I think that China has a
15
lot of lose if they don't have a good relationship
16
with the United States
1 7 Q
You know, Bill Boeing's first engineer was Chinese
18
born, Wong Tsoo And it's been noted before that for a
19
global company, Boeing's executive ranks don't - have
20
a surprising lack of diversity
21
22
23
executive and president of BCA in India But I don't
24
see that in China There's very few Chinese-American
25
Now I look, for
KRON ASSOCIATES
1113 W Fireweed Lane Suite 200
Anchorage Alaska 99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009461
37
1
2
3
we're in Seattle, we're on the Pacific Rim...
Yeah.
-and we've gcit a great Asian-American community here.
sell Boeing airplanes. How come you don't have more
such faces?
And it won't be long and we'll give you a call.
10
Stay tuned. You'll be the first person we call, okay?
Okay, thanks. We're running out of time so a few
11
12
13
14
15
leveraged that. You did it for the Poseidon and-.
16
Yeah.
17
m(indiscernible) that's built in Renton. So you
18
installed all the military's hardware inline on
19
20
Yeah.
21
Is that what's going to happen on tanker, if you win
i t ? Will you do that in Everett?
22
23
We will do as much as we can in Everett. We'll make
24
all the structural modifications that we can. We'll
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009462
38
doing business down. And that's what we plan on doing.
You know, I'm very intrigued by that. You know, it's
10
11
12
13
that we don't like. And, you know, I understand from
14
15
Northrop doesn't like. But it's not a perfect RFP for
16
17
You know, I read that thing and, you know, I don't
18
19
I'm assuming that (indiscernible) is going to bid.
20
21
company that should you win it this time, you've done
22
23
the competition?
24
25
I guess I don't understand. I don't think that there's
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009463
39
they came to the decision they came to. I mean let's
review the - let's review the tape here. We had 98
five. There was no credit to be given for fuel of
it was flawed. That's why they're doing the re-
10
11
But the Congressional support that you have - you, way
12
back as early as the early 2000s, were...
1 3 A
14
don't think there's been a competition that I've been
15
16
17
18
And where they don't make their decision based on the
19
RFP, you know, companies have the opportunity to
20
protest, which we did, and in which we do very
21
22
One political issue that's come into the whole tanker
debate is WTO, and I'd like to go to that now.
23
24
Yeah.
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009464
40
didn't change a thing. Nothing happened. And, you
they're getting government money to help do it. So
what's the point? Where can these WTO suits go?
10
11
Well, you know, first of all you've got to remember,
12
Dominique, that we didn't bring the WTO suit. The
13
14
brought that suit.
15
They wouldn't have done so if you didn't want it.
1 6 A
17
18
illegal subsidies that were in violation of the WTO
19
rules. I mean that's why the lawsuit was brought. And
20
21
22
that's their - the preliminary judgment that they've
23
laid down.
2 4 Q
Well certainly some people see it as politics...
2 5 A
Well_
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009465
41
tanker.
2
3
-to block - in part, it helps to try to block the
So, you know, we're building the 787 the old fashioned
way. We're using our own money. On the A-330, you
subsidies of close to $6 billion. You know, that's a
significant advantage for them that we don't enjoy.
lo
11
got. It's not there. And we're competing. We're not
12
crying foul. We're going to do the best we can with
13
the proposal.
14
15
16
Boeing is accused of illegal subsidies (indiscernible
17
- interrupted)?
1 8 A
19
the outcome. Of course then again,
20
21
time. As I've told people, there's only one more - one
22
23
24
25
D o m in iq u e ,
You mentioned earlier'in this conversation that being
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009466
42
don't want to be in last place. So since we're
that - how do you see that playing out in the next few
years?
that's going to start in 2012, 2013, you know, we
know, relative to airplane deliverie. We ought to
10
think, you know, longer term, it's easy to get the
11
most orders and it's easy to make the most deliveries.
12
13
We're not going to do that. If I look at, you know, 10
14
years from now, we're going to have a brand new 47;
15
we're going to have a brand new 87; we're going to
16
17
airplane; and we're going to have a major upgrade to
18
the 777 or we're going to have a new 300 to 400
19
passenger airplane. I mean we're going to
20
21
22
23
you're going to sell airplanes. And we should be
24
25
we're going to be number one? It's because of those
h a v e a w h o le
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009467
43
replace me pretty quick. But it's the collective
that we do. And they're the ones that will make it
happen.
There's an expectation of restraint today in corporate
10
executive bonuses. Boeing -- a lot of Boeing's money,
11
12
you're laying off thousands of people right now, but
13
14
regular bonus for staying - for switching jobs. How is
15
that justified (indiscernible - interrupted).
1 6 A
No, they didn't make me any promises when I came here.
17
And I didn't ask the Board of the Comp Committee for
18
19
they've done, but it's not something that I asked them
20
21
2 2 Q
Do you understand why it doesn't look good to workers
23
24
bonuses?
2 5 A
Well my job is to make sure that workers don't get
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009468
44
laid off. I mean I think that I've got an unwritten
grow this place. And at the same time I'm asking them
level of jobs at the same number that it's at today.
And that's what I think my job is.
Okay. I'm going to stop there.
10
Okay.
1 1 Q
1 2 A
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009469
45
1
2
complete transcript of Interview of Jim Albaugh, transcribed
by me from a copy of the digital sound recording to the best
of my knowledge and ability.
Date
Gloria Schein
KRON ASSOCIATES
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00009470
JIM A L B A U G H IN T E R V IE W B Y D O M IN IC G A T E S'
M arch 1,2010
T R A N SC R IP T
F IL E N O .1
D om inic
B ut you know I feel im pelled to ask som e hard questions on behalf of basically
the com m unity of W ashington as a result of last year's

. L ast year
w e had the decision to locate the second 787 line in C harleston. A nd then
subsequently announced that all 787 w ork for the Puget Sound area w ould be
duplicated elsew here. So I think the local com m unity is clearly w orried about
B oeing's future here. T hat's som ething that's follow ed on from you m oved
the headquarters in 01 and there have been repeated threats that future w ork
m ight not be here. So last year seem ed to really increase that feeling. So w hat
is B oeing's com m itm ent to W ashington State?
A lbaugh
W ell this is the headquarters of the B oeing C om m ercial A ircraft. A nd it w ill
be I think for probably forever. T he issue last Fall w as really about how w e
could ensure production stability and how w e could ensure that w e are
com petitive for the long haul. W e had som e very productive discussions w ith
the U nion and unfortunately w e just didn't com e to an agreem ent w here w e felt
w e could ensure production stability. A nd w e read that as getting aw ay from
the frequent strikes that w e're having. A nd also could w e stop the rate of
escalation of w ages. A nd w e just could not get to a place w here w e both felt
w as a w in for both ourselves and the U nion,so w e m ade the decision to go to
C harleston. N ow its m y hope, and I w ill tell you D om inic,m y preference is to
do the w ork here in the future. B ut w e'll do w ork here if w e can m ake sure
that w e have the stability of the production lines and that w e can be
com petitive over the long haul.A nd those are the tw o things that I think I have
to ensure our custom ers and I have to ensure also the stockholders of the
B oeing C om pany.
D om inic
So looking now into the future,now that you have decided on having this other
plant in C harleston,how do you see the geographic shift of B oeing and the
balance there betw een those tw o icoastal plants.
W ell, I guess I don't really see it as a balance. C learly the center of gravity is
here in Puget Sound and w ill continue to be here in Puget Sound. A nd I'm
very hopeful, as w e continue to have discussions w ith the U nion, that w e'll be
able to com e up w ith w ays of being com petitive here,and w e can com e up
A lbaugh
1 T his transcript w as created from video of the interview available on T he Seattle T im es w ebsite at
http //seattletim es.nw source.com /htm l/nationw orld/2011237525_albaughvideo.htm l
-I-
E x. 8 - B o ein g , Ju ly 9, 2010 (19-C A -32431)
NLRB-FOIA-00009471
w ith w ays of ensuring that w e're not gonna have labor strikes.A nd if w e can
get through those tw o hurdles,w e're gonna be doing w ork here for a long long
tim e.A nd there are no discussions of m oving any w ork that's currently here
out of Puget Sound.

D om inic
R ight,but of course its future w ork that people are w orried about.W hat are
the chances thatthe nextnew jet after the 787 w ill be built here?
A lbaugh
Y eah,I'll tell you,the com m itm ent that I can give you is that the first
preference is to put the w ork here.B ut w e have to ensure ourselves that w e're
gonna have a stable production line and w e have to ensure thatw e can be
com petitive over the long haul.If w e don't,w e're not gonna be selling any
airplanes.A nd I think that's the w orse outcom e for Puget Sound and that's the
w orse outcom e for the com pany.
D om inic
W ell,so w hen the tim e com es to announce the launch of a new airplane
program ,w hich could com e in a few years,you w ould say launch a new
airplane program and that's the plan for it.A re w e going are the people of
this State once again going to face a com petition w ith all the states in the U .S.?
A lbaugh
I guess I don't really view it as a com petition.
D om inic
B utitw as lasttim e.
A lbaugh
I don't think it w as.It w as not a com petition.W hat it w as w as,again,w e've
had strikes three out of the last four tim es w e've had a labor negotiation w ith
the JA M .A nd I'm not blam ing that on the JA M .I m ean that is an issue
betw een m anagem ent,created by m anagem ent,and created by labor.Y ou
know ,w e need to im prove the relationship that w e have.A nd w e've got to get
to a position w here w e can ensure our custom ers that every three years they're
notgonna have a protracted shutdow n. Y ou know , w e have custom ers right
now that are telling us that in contracts they don't w ant to w rite in excusable
delays for strikes.T hat's not a situation that's good for us.T hat's not a good
situation for them .It's not a good situation for labor.A nd if one projects out
another 15 years,w e're not just gonna be com peting against the E uropeans.
W e'll be com peting against the E uropeans and the B razilians,the C anadians,
and the C hinese,and the R ussians.A nd w e have an obligation to m ake sure
that as w e com pete against not just one but com pete against four,w e have got
a coststructure and productivity capability thatw ill allow us to continue to
com pete.
D om inic
In saying that it w asn't a com petition,clearly you're referring to the C harleston
decision last year.B ut I w as referring to the '03 com petition w hen B oeing
actually had a form al com petition to find out W here they w ere gonna build the
787.
-2-
NLRB-FOIA-00009472
A lbaugh
W ell I w asn't involved in that one and....
D om inic
So the question is w ill there be another com petition like that w hen you build
the next ...
A lbaugh
I don't think I w ould if I'm involved,I'm not gonna have a com petition like
that,I can tell you that.B ut w hat w e are gonna do is study very hard,w ith the
first option being here,to m ake sure that w e do the right thing for the
custom er,w hich m eans not have labor stoppages and do the right thing for the
custom er to give them the kind of value that they w ant in the airplanes.
D om inic
Just to dw ell on the C harleston expansion for a m om ent,it does seem to m e
that the com plexity and expense and risk attached to doing all that there is
som ething that's hard to justify.D oes it really m ake business sense?
A lbaugh
T here's no question that w henever you go to a greenfield site there is risk
involved.A t the sam e tim e,w ith the protracted labor stoppage that w e had
back lastI guess the Fallof 2008 I m ean thatcostthe com pany billions of
dollars.A nd I think if you com pare w hat it cost because of the stoppages
- versus the cost and the risk of starting a new line in C harleston,I think the
investm ent certainly is the right one for us to m ake.
Fem ale
[illegible too far aw ay from m icrophone]
A lbaugh
Y eah.A bsolutely.A gain,m y first preference w hen I started looking at this
last Fall w as to stay here,and w e justcould not get over those tw o hurdles.
H ow do w e ensure stability of m anufacturing and how could w e ensure that
labor costs w eren't gonna continue to escalate.
D om inic
D o you think a chance w as m issed to I m ean you have a labor problem ,that
w as clear.Y ou just had that strike.Y ou have a big relationship w ith the
U nion problem .Potentially you could have fixed that and got your production
here and not have the expensive at C harleston.W as it a chance m issed?
A lbaugh
W e tried.W e did not get there.A nd you can blam e both sides for that.A nd
over the next couple of years w e're gonna do everything w e can to w ork w ith
the U nion to m ake sure that w e don't have another stoppage and that w e have a
path to com petitiveness over the long haul,and that w e get the kind of
relationship w ith the U nion w here w e don't have to w orry about labor
stoppages in the future.Y ou know ,this is a great w ork force here.T hey are
m agicians.T hey do things that I don't think any labor force in the w orld can
do.A nd I feel m y job is to m ake sure they have jobs five years from now ,ten
years from now ,tw enty years from now .B ut w e're not none of us are gonna
have jobs if w e continue to have strikes that go on for three or four m onths,
every three years.
-3-
NLRB-FOIA-00009473
D om inic
So,to sum up the C harleston decision,let's be clear.T he C harleston decision
itw asn't aboutW ashington's business plan,right?
A lbaugh
Itw as not.
D om inic
It w as not about trying to get low er labor costs going w here w ork is cheap.It
w as about the strikes.
A lbaugh
It w as about ensuring to our custom ers that w hen w e com m it to deliver
airplanes on certain dates,thatw e actually do deliver.A nd w e have lost our
custom ers have lost confidence in our ability to do that because of the strikes.
T he other thing is the rate of escalation for the w ages.T hey continue to go up
in dram atic fashion.Y ou know ,how can w e flatten that out.T hose are the
tw o things thatw e are after.
D om inic
W ell,lets just m ove on to talk about the U nion in a little bit m ore detail.Y ou
know w hen you cam e here,I think it w as last July,for the rollout of the
Poseidon atthe subplantin R enton,you talked about you praised thatthe
m en and w om en at Puget Sound have m ade this possible.
A lbaugh
Y eah.T hey're fabulous.
D om inic
A nd you just repeated that here.A nd yet,that w as in July,and then in the Fall.
It seem ed like a slap in the face to the people here to say that w e're gonna
build itsom ew here w e're gonna take the 787 w ork som ew here else.
A lbaugh
Y eah,you see,I guess I don't see it as a slap in the face D om inic.I think that
if w e don't have a com pany nobody has jobs.A nd if w e can't m eet the
prom ises w e m ake to our custom ers relative to delivery of aircraft,w e're not
gonna be in the business.If w e continue to have costs that go up faster than
the com petition,w e're not gonna be selling any airplanes.T his is about
m aking our com pany com petitive over the long haul.B y going to C harleston,
I believe that w e're gonna help reduced costs here.N ow you say how is that
possible? W ell the average cost of an airplane built here and the average cost
of an airplane built in C harleston goes into a program accounting.T he average
unit price of an airplane should go dow n as a result of our being in C harleston.
T hat w ill create m ore dem and for airplanes built here and in C harleston.
D om inic
B ut how big a com ponent of that average cost of an airplane is actually labor.
It's not a big chunk of it,is it?
A lbaugh
Its nota big chunk.Its again I'm not gonna give you the exact percentage.
It's a significant percentage.Its less than half certainly.B ut again,I think the
other bigger part of it is w hen w e com m it to delivering an airplane,people put
together their business plans based on assum ing they're gonna get delivery on
certain dates.A nd w hen they don't get delivery it im pacts their ability to m eet
their business plan to m ake m oney and to buy m ore airplanes in the long haul.
-4-
NLRB-FOIA-00009474
A nd they w ill think tw ice the next tim e they decide to buy an airplane from us
or from A irbus or 10 years from now from the C anadians or the C hinese,or the
B razilians.T his is gonna be a very com petitive w orld w e're in,m uch m ore
com petitive than its been to date.W e've enjoyed a duopoly here.A nd all the
rules are gonna change.A nd you know w hen you're in a duopoly,as w e are
and you're in second place,you're last place.I don't w ant to be in last place.I
w antto be in firstplace.
D om inic
So given w hathappened w ith the U nion lastyear,the failure to reach
agreem ent resulting in that decision....
A lbaugh
A nd blam e that on both of us; the fact w e didn't get there.
D om inic
W ell,justforgetting aboutblam e,I'm w ondering w ellletm e ask,firstof all,
w hat is your attitude to U nions?
A lbaugh
I've alw ays gotten along great w ith U nions.I've ,w orked w ith them .I've
w alked the concrete w ith them .I've listened to them .I've w atched them do
am azing things relative to productivity.I've seen them w ork m iracles out
there in the production line.Y ou see that every day dow n in R enton.Y ou see
that every day up at E verett on the T riple 7 w here they're m aking huge strides
relative to productivity.
D om inic
W ell,that's the w ork force,but the U nion itself.B oeing has often portrayed
the U nion as an obstacle betw een itself and its w ork force.
A lbaugh
Y ou know w here there is an issue w ith the U nion that's a reflection on
m anagem ent.W e create the environm ent.W e create the culture.A nd m y
hope is that w e can have good relationships at the top,allthe w ay dow n to the
people on the factory floor.I w as in a m eeting last w eek in W ashington,D .C .
w ith som e of the leadership w ith the IA M ,and w e had m any things that w e
agree on.A nd I think as w e go forw ard I hope there are m ore things w e agree
on because neither one of us are gonna be in very good shape unless w e're
selling airplanes.
D om inic
W as M r.B uffenbarger there?
A lbaugh
M r.B uffenbarger w as not.
D om inic
W ell,but given w hat happened last year,you're now the new guy in position,
and you've got the poison that entered the relationship as a result of failed
talks.H ow do you fix it now ?
A lbaugh
I think you fix it by com m unicating.A nd I think that the IA M understands
that w e're entering a global econom y,global com petition.Its gonna be m ore
than just ourselves and the E uropeans.A nd our ability to be productive,you
know our ability to keep the prom ises that w e m ake to our custom ers,those are
-5-
NLRB-FOIA-00009475
the things that are gonna dictate w hether or not w e have a com pany and
w hether or not w e're selling airplanes in years to com e.A nd I think that once
w e agree on w here w e need to go together,w e can figure out a w ay to get
there.
D om inic
W ell,obviously you'd like a better relationship w ith JA M and you w ould hope
to achieve it.B ut does the cost of labor here m ean that B oeing is alw ays gonna
favor som e non-U nion alternative because it is gonna be cheaper?
A lbaugh
Y ou know you look at the installed base that w e have here.Y ou look at all the
tooling that w e've invested here.Y ou look at all the training and the skilled
w ork force that w e have here.Y ou look at the ability of this team to take cost
out of an airplane.T hose count for a lot.T hose count for just as m uch,if not
m ore,than just the w ages.B ut again,the w ages have gone up dram atically and
w e need to have the knee of that curve inched over a little bit.W e can't
continue to go on w ith the dram atic fashion w e have in the past.
D om inic
I'd also like to point to a certain

E N D O F FIL E 1
FIL E N O .2
and you've got heavy congressional support on that.
D om inic
A lbaugh
W e do.
D om inic
A nd that support in congress is based on the need to protect good A m erican
jobs.A nd w hen they talk about good A m erican jobs and w ell paying
A m erican jobs,they're contrasting it to non-U nion jobs in A labam a.A nd the
U nion delivered thatcongressionalsupportlargely w ellnotjustthe U nion,
but a big elem ent. T hose dem ocratic politicians w ho are U nion supported.
T hat's a big elem ent.A nd so the U nion has delivered that for you.W hat do
you give to the U nion?
A lbaugh
W e got 60,000,now w e got 75,000 jobs here in Puget Sound.A nd w e're
gonna have tens of thousands of jobs for years to com e.B ut w e're talking
about C harleston w here w e m ay have 3,or 4,or 5,000 people.Y ou know ,
clearly the U nion recognizes that,certainly the politicians in the State of
W ashington,the elected officials,understand that this is the center of gravity.
A nd that's not gonna change.T he 767 airplane in its entirety is gonna be built
here by the w orkers that have built this airplane in the past.N othing is gonna
change in that regard.A nd the last tim e I checked,in C harleston those w ere
U .S.C itizens dow n there.
D om inic
B ut again non-U nion and m uch low er paid jobs.
-6-
NLRB-FOIA-00009476
A lbaugh
T hose are w ellpaying jobs dow n there.
D om inic
B y the w ay,do you have any concerns as you look at the future? W ell you've
already,you've agreed w ith m e that the business clim ate here w asn't a
particular factor in that decision last year.O f course all the states in the U nion
in the currentdow nturn are in terrible financial trouble,budgetary trouble,
South C arolina as w ell as W ashington.D o you have any concerns about
changes ahead that m ight affect your future here in this state in term s of ....
A lbaugh
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 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.
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 of the U nion
and the best efforts of the com pany.
D om inic
Y ou're on the com pany's executive council,so there is certainly a perception
thatchief executive M cN erney(?) drove thatC harleston decision and that som e
people here w ere not too happy about it.W ere you a part of that decision?
A lbaugh
W ell,I w as the one that m ade the presentation to the board of directors.A nd I
w ent into this thing feeling thatif w e could getit done here,w e could save the
com pany a lot of m oney.A nd there w ere tw o things that I needed,as I
m entioned.A nd w e couldn't get those tw o things done.A nd not getting those
tw o things done,I m ade the recom m endation that I thought w as the right one.
A nd that w as to go to C harleston.
D om inic
So,before w e leave that subjectentirely,there's one lastthing.
A lbaugh
Som ehow I knew you w ere gonna talk about this D om inic.
D om inic
So there are they've been talking for m any years -- B oeing is outof here,
B oeing is leaving,B oeing doesn't like us anym ore.C an w e,as a just final
question on that topic....
A lbaugh
Y ou can put that one to bed.I m ean w e've got a terrific w ork force here.
W e've got engineers w ho have m ore depth and breadth of know ledge about
building airplanes m ore than anyplace that I've ever been.W e've got a
talented w ork force.Y ou know ,this is w here our people w ant to live.T his is
w here w e w ant to be.W e've had a great partnership w ith the State of
W ashington.I hope its one that continues for a long long tim e to com e.
A gain,I preface itby or caveatitby saying thatitis gonna be a m uch m ore
com petitive environm ent out there in the future.A nd w ork anyplace is notan
entitlem ent.
-7-
NLRB-FOIA-00009477
D om inic
Sounds like if you can fix things w ith the m achinists then the outlook for here
looks an aw ful lotrosier.
A lbaugh
I sure hope it does.T hat's I'm gonna be here a few years,and I w ould like
nothing better than to get a great contract w ith the U nion and put to bed the
concern our custom ers have about our ability to deliver on the prom ises w e
m ake.
D om inic
Y ou m entioned the engineers here.I w ant to talk about that.O ne of the things
you did w hen you cam e here in O ctober,you established an advisory group.
,Joe Sutter,
T he old-tim e B oeing people.People like John

.People associated w ith the old style of B oeing.A nd then in
January B oeing elevated nine engineering leaders to the m ove that w as spun as
harking back to the early days w hen aerospace com panies w ere driven by
engineering culture.So I w ant to ask you,you are an engineer? Y ou started as
an engineer.Is that a specific goal,to reinstate the prim acy of engineering w ith
in B C A ?
A lbaugh
I think decisions need to be driven m ore by engineering and less by the,w hat
I'll call the business decision-m akers.I think on the 787 program w e m ade
som e decisions that took on m uch m ore risk than w e should have taken on.
Som e of these outsourcing decisions w ere w e did notconsider the extent
the risk that w e'd take on by going outside.A nd I think that w e are and w e
w ill m ake sure that the engineers and the voice of the engineers is m uch m ore
involved in the decision-m aking as w e go forw ard.B ringing the senior
advisory group in a lotof people leftthis com pany during the m erger,right
after the m erger.A nd a lot of people left I think right after 2000,2001 because
they didn't see us developing any new program s.A nd w e lost a lot of the
heritage of this com pany.A nd going into the 787 program ,w e didn't have a
large group of people that had ever been through a developm ent program
before.T he great thing about the 747,the 787 is w e're training a w hole new
generation of engineers and program m anagers on how to do developm ent
program s by bringing back Sutter and R oundhill and Q uim alivin(?) and those
icons in the B oeing com pany.W e're getting the benefit of hundreds of years
of know ledge and experience and they are people that I listen to,they're
people that I w ant to get m y team in front of so they can get the benefit of their
history and the benefit of the things that they've done right and the things that
they have done w rong over the years.Y ou know ,the w hole issue of the iconic
engineers.Y ou know I started that w ith John T racey in the old ID S
organization.W hen I grew up,the sheriff in tow n w as the chief engineer.Y ou
didn't do anything w ithout getting the chief engineer on board.A nd if you
didn't get him on board and you w ere w rong,it w as not a good situation.A nd
I pushed John very hard thatw e needed to elevate the iconic engineers in this
com pany.T hey needed to get m ore recognition.T hey needed to be m ore
involved.A nd w ith som e of the changes that w e m ade by prom oting the eight
or nine vice presidents into engineer,I think,into engineering does that.
-8-
NLRB-FOIA-00009478
D om inic
A nother aspect of the relationship w ith your engineers is your relationship w ith
another union w hich is SPE E A . A nd it does seem to m e that that relationship
has been adversarial for aw hile.If you w ant to elevate engineers,w hy so
adversarial w ith SPE E A .
A lbaugh
Y eah w ell,I don't have all the history.Y ou probably know m ore about it than
I do D om inic.T his place doesn't run w ithout engineers and it doesn't run
w ithout m achinists.A nd I think that w hat w e need to do w ith our engineering
organization is be realclear about w hat partof engineering do w e w ant to do
here.A nd I think w hat happened w ith the 787 w as w e outsourced things
w ithout explaining to the engineering com m unity w hy.A nd one of the things
that I sat dow n w ith our new chief of engineering,you know M ike D elaney,is
w e need a strategy w hat are those things,w hatis thatlP that w e're gonna do
here.W hat are those tasks that only the B oeing com pany understands the
things thatw e need to hold close.T he flightcontrols never outsource that.
T he w ings -- never outsource that.T he fuselage,the com posites don't
outsource those.W e need to define very clearly things that w e should do and
have to do and those things that anybody can do.A nd those things that w e
need to do to hold on to our IP,w e need to build the w alls around those very
high.A nd I think w e need to go and com m unicate to the U nion of SPE E A and
the U nion,IA M U nion.W hat are those things that w e w ant to hold close and
hold dear.W e outsourced too m uch.
D om inic
Y eah,w ell,I definitely w ant to talk about that.Y ou just said you never
outsource the w ings.Isn't it too late,you've already outsourced the w ings to
Japan.
A lbaugh
W ell w e have.W e'll build other airplanes.
D om inic
So M itsubishi is not gonna be building ....
A lbaugh
I didn't say that.I didn't say that.T hose are exam ples.T hose are exam ples.
D om inic
W ell actually you and M r.M cN erney have talked repeatedly in various venues
about this issue and w hat you said is you're gonna draw the lines differently.
T hat's the phrase that you use.A nd I'm w ondering if you could just elaborate
a little bit on w hat that m eans.In particular,for exam ple,I understand its
already happening in the 787-9,the second version of the 787 thatyou are
outsourcing less of it than you did on the dash 8.B ut how exactly,I m ean the
w ings are still being m ade in Japan,fuselage in Italy.
A lbaugh
W e lost control of the design.W e lost control of the interface.W e didn't
provide enough oversightto the subcontractors thatw ere doing the various
elem ents of engineering and m anufacturing.O n the dash 9 w e pulled som e of
that engineering back.A s you know ,w e took over the V ought facility.W e
took over the G lobal A eronautical Facility.So w e now have control of som e
of the fuselage of the airplane.So w e have pulled som e back for both the
-9-
NLRB-FOIA-00009479
D ash 8 and the D ash 9.T hose lines that w e're gonna have to redraw ,w e're in
the process of redraw ing those right now .If you look at a product strategy,the
m anufacturing strategy,an outsourcing strategy,an engineering strategy,all
those are very interrelated,and w e're in the process of defining those strategies
rightnow .
D om inic
O ne thing that you did on the 87 w as you not only had M itsubishi build the
w ings in Japan,but you had them do the detailed design of the interior of the
w ing.A nd is that continuing on the D ash 9?
A lbaugh
I believe it is.Its not the sam e w ing,the new w ing.It's the sam e length,but
it's a stiffer w ing and its got it carries m ore loads.So it's a different w ing.I
think that they're still doing the w ing design on the D ash 9.W e can check that
for you.
D om inic
B ut,you know ,given w hat happened w ith the 87,then I think I read w hat you
just said as an adm ission that it didn't w ork very w ell and that you did m ake
m istakes in outsourcing the w ork.
A lbaugh
W e learned a lot.
D om inic
A nd you paid for it.Y ou've had tw o years delay.So isn't that an argum ent
for som e surprise that despite that B oeing is nevertheless insisting that the 787
supply-chain m odel is the one for the future.Y ou draw the line slightly
differently,but you'll stick to that m odel.W hy,w hen it didn't w ork so w ell?
O r how do you change it to m ake it w ork?
A lbaugh
Its really easy in hindsight to second guess decisions that w ere m ade.A nd I
think they m ade a lot of good decisions on the 787.O ne that they got the
airplane right.I m ean this is gonna be an airplane that's very efficient.T his is
gonna be an airplane that I know people are gonna w ant to buy. A nd this is
gonna be an airplane that changes the w ay people travel and changes the w ay
that airplanes are built.B ut,I think w e outsourced elem ents of the airplane to
people that didn't have a lot of experience at it.W e didn't provide them the
kind of oversight and support that w as necessary.A nd w e lost control of som e
of the interfaces.So w hat do w e have to do differently or better going forw ard.
W ell,again,w e're gonna redraw those lines and w e have to treat any
subcontractor in the future as an external factor,as an external design team .
W e need to look at them as m ore than just a com pany that w e throw a
specification over the w all to.W e need to be m uch m ore but I think that if
you talk to m e,if you talk to Jim M cN erney,w e'll both say that w e m oved up
the value chain too far and w e took on too m uch risk.
E N D O F FIL E 2
FIL E N O .3
-10-
NLRB-FOIA-00009480
D om inic
W ell,I think thatstrategy is in part connected w ith w hathad been a m antra at
B oeing for som e years including at ID S w here you w ere m eeting w hich w as
that B oeing w as shifting tow ards large scale system s integration.
A lbaugh
W ell,actually it's a little different at ID S you see.W e,yeah,com plex large
scale system s integration is w hat this com pany does.A t ID S,this w hole idea
of best of industry and being integrator w as notan actof inspiration,it w as an
act of desperation,you know ,w e didn't have any verticals.W e w eren't
vertically integrated to begin w ith.A nd that w as a strategy that w e put
together because w e had no other atour disposalother than to go outand buy a
bunch of com panies to get vertically integrated.I think the difference over
here,is they started off being reasonably vertically integrated and m oved up
the value chain.A nd I think in hind sight,w e probably m oved up a little too
far.
.
D om inic
W ell,som e people definitely saw that,if w e confine ourselves to speaking
about B C A ,saw this strategy as a m ove aw ay from the actual building of the
airplane tow ards a m ore architectural,conceptual approach early in the stages,
doing the m arket analysis deciding the

and architecting it.A nd,of
course,final assem bling it.B ut final assem bly w as relegated to a snap-
together airplane,in theory,at least it hasn't w orked out quite like that.B ut
the actual building of the airplanes here in PugetSound factories w as
som ething that w as less im portant.It w as w ork that seem ed to be designated
low er level w ork that other could do.Is that the w ay it goes in future or is
that...
A lbaugh
See,I w ould not subscribe to that,you know ,m y view is there's certain things
that you have to keep w ithin your com pany,you know ,those pieces of
intellectual property that nobody else in the w orld understands or know s how
to do.A nd those are things both from a m anufacturing and design standpoint
that you need to keep in sight.A nd then there are other things,seats,galleys,
som e of the,m uch of the m achining,you know ,anybody can do those things.
B ut w hy do people com e to you? T hey com e to you because you understand
things better than anybody in the w orld understands about airplanes. A nd w e
need to define w hat those things are,and w e need to hold those things very
close.Y ou know ,the other issue that I feel pretty strongly about is if all
you're doing is system s integration,I m ean,how do you train the engineers of
the future to be system s integrators.I m ean,I think engineers need to com e in
and design som ething.T hey need to design a part.T hey need to see how a
part goes into a subsystem ,how a subsystem goes into a system and how
system s of system s interact.Y ou have to have som e degree of basic design so
you can train the system s integrators of the future.
D om inic
I have too m uch of that so that the engineers here didn't have enough to,so the
things you w ant to protect include the w ings?
-1 1-
NLRB-FOIA-00009481
A lbaugh
I think w e understand how to build w ings as w ell anybody in the w orld,and I
think w e're dem onstrating that.In our 737 program w e're,you know w hat? I
guess building 62 w ings a m onth.T hat's pretty good production.
D om inic
.
A lright.G ood.W ell,the question about your ow n taking over at B C A ,it
seem s to m e looking on from the outside,that you have approached your job,
your new job,eager to shake things up.A fter som e m onths of review ,you
have a m ajor m anagem ent shuffle of putting different people in different place.
Y ou organized your m anagem ent retreat and got everyone on the sam e page.
So I'm just w ondering,it does seem that you are,in som e sense,about change.
A nd w hat needed changing and w hat's ahead?
A lbaugh
W ell,I guess first of all,I didn't see that m anagem ent shake up that w e had as
being that dram atic,you know ,w hat did w e do? W e form ed an organization
called Program M anagem ent to ensure that w e bring the program m anagem ent
and execution discipline necessary to all the program s.A nd w e put them
under H ow ard C ham bers,som ebody that's been doing developm ent program s
for 40 years.I also had a view that w e w ere focused a lot on 787 and 747 and
appropriately so.B ut at the sam e tim e,I had a view that w e had to be thinking,
you know ,longer term .W hat do w e need to do on the single aisle airplanes?
W hat do w e need to do in term s of upgrading the T riple 7 or a brand new
T riple 7 size airplanes? A nd that's I asked M ike B air to go focus on the new
single aisle airplane or an upgraded 737,and you say,w hy M ike? W ell,you
know ,M ike got the configuration of 787 correct.A nd he's very good at that.
A nd he's very analytical in his thinking,and I know that the decision w e m ake
on the 37 w ill be the right one.A nd then w e took L ars A nderson and talked
him into com ing out of retirem ent and asked L ars to focus on T riple 7 next
generation or a new 300-400 seat airplane.A nd L ars w as good enough to
com e out of retirem ent to do that.So I w ould say this reorganization w as
really about finding the future,but also bringing m ore discipline to how w e
execute existing program s.M ost of the key players and the program
m anagers,they didn't change.W e had a couple of people retire,so w e m oved
som e people around.B ut I w ould not call that a m ajor change in the
organization other than to focus on the future and the program m anagem ent
discipline.Y ou know on the offsite,I'm not a new guy on the block,and I felt
the w hole team ,all the executives needed to understand w hat I felt w as
im portant.A nd w hat I tried to achieve for that m eeting w as to get alignm ent
of the entire staff on and w here w e needed to go,w hatthe challenges w ere,
w hat the issues w ere,and w hat w e all needed to do together.A nd there are
really only four things.I try to keep things pretty sim ple for the team .W hat
w e have to do is,w e've got to continue to add value to our custom ers,that's
w hy they keep com ing back.W e need to find the future for the B oeing
C om pany.W e need to develop the leadership team of the future,and w e need
to m eet the plan.A nd those are the four things that w e talked about.
D om inic
T he appointm ent of H ow ard C ham bers to oversee program m anagem ent,that's
specifically,I think,just to m anage projects.It does seem that the perception
-12-
NLRB-FOIA-00009482
is B oeing has failed in that here or over a couple of years.Y ou see,I haven't
kept control of the program .
A lbaugh
Y eah,it's interesting.I think that B C A is extraordinary in their ability to
m anage program s.A nd I don't think anybody m anages a supply chain as w ell
as they do.Just the fact that w e're doing 311/2 737s a m onth,and w e set a
record last year w ith 88 T riple 7s being delivered,do a great job of program
m anagem ent on production program s.I think the issue w as on the
developm ent program s,the fact that w e hadn't done a m ajor developm ent
program in a long,long tim e.T he fact that a lot of the people that had,had
retired.A nd som e of the decisions w e m ade on the program w ere business-
driven as opposed to being driven by the engineering com m unity.A nd w e just
took on too m uch risk.
Fem ale
program m anagem ent and ideas.T he program m anagem ent is really
an essentialfunction and discipline.
A lbaugh
Y eah,at ID S w e had 300 program s,and the vast m ajority of program s are
developm ent program s,you know ,an A B L program ,that's all it is,is a
developm ent program .I m ean,the space station w as a developm ent program
and w ent on for 10 years.T he G round-B ased M idcourse M issile D efense
program w as a test bed.It becam e a developm ent program and finally w e're
installing it.B ut how you do program m anagem ent and developm ent
program s is som ething that H ow ard understands very w ell,and I think I
understand pretty w ell.A nd w e're trying to bring m any of those disciplines to
the B C A side.A t the sam e tim e,w e're trying to bring a lot of the talents that
B C A has,relative to supply chain m anagem ent,you know ,over to the ID S
side.So,I m ean,there's great synergy w ithin in this com pany.A nd,you
know ,one of the things I hope to achieve being over here is to encourage even
m ore of that.
D om inic
Y ou talked about potential com petitors in the future.I'd like m ove on and talk
about C hina.I believe you're m aking a second trip to C hina or have you just
m ade it?
A lbaugh
I think I'm going the last w eek of this m onth,yeah.
D om inic
A nd that's your second trip,right?
A lbaugh
Y eah.
D om inic
So,I find it interesting,B oeing like the U nited States itself,has an am bivalent
view of C hina's enorm ous grow th.It's off of the trade as a potential m assive
m arket w hich also portrayed as a potential threat.A nd w hen you w ere head of
the defense side of B oeing,perhaps you had to view C hina one w ay.N ow
you're head of B C A ,you're m aking trips to C hina to sell airplanes.So
recently the U .S.sold arm s to T aiw an,w hich resulted in the threat from C hina
-13-
NLRB-FOIA-00009483
to boycott any com panies involved including,B oeing had a sm all part in that,
the m issiles.T hen the last w eek there w as a W all Street Journal piece saying
that w e should build m ore F-22s w hich of course,B oeing know s a big part of
here in Seattle because of the potential threat from C hina one day.So the
question is,how do you,in the position you're in now ,how do you handle this
com plex relationship betw een the U .S.and C hina,and betw een B oeing and
C hina?
A lbaugh
W ell,you know ,I'll tell you there's not a lot that the B oeing C om pany can do
about the relationship betw een C hina and the U nited States.I m ean,the
decision to sell arm s w as country-to-country.It w as not a decision w ith the
B oeing C om pany in any w ay got involved in.I think the only thing that I can
do is try to be the best custom er to the C hinese airlines and the best partner to
som e of the joint ventures that w e have in C hina that w e can be.I don't w orry
a lot about things I can't control.W hat I can control is the relationship that w e
have w ith the airlines in C hina.A nd w e're going to w ork very hard on those.
Y ou know ,C hina is going to have a G D P as big as ours w ithin the next 20
years.It's an econom y that's going to need airplanes.T hey're developing 34
new airports right now ,large airports.W e're developing one here in the
U nited States.T hey're going to be buying about 200 airplanes a year for the
next 20 years.It's a big m arket for us.T hey're going to building their ow n
airplanes.A nd I have full confidence that they'll build a very good airplane,
m aybe not the first tim e,but eventually they'll get it right.A nd I spent a lot of
tim e in space business,so I know that going to outer space is a difficult thing.
Y ou've go to from zero to 22,000 feetin 81/2 m inutes w ith 2,000 feetper
second in 81/2 m inutes.T hey did it a lot faster than anybody thought they
could.T hey have m ade a national com m itm ent to building com m ercial
airplanes.T hey're going to invest billions of dollars in developing that
capability.T hey have,you know ,m any,m any tim es as m any engineers
com ing out of their colleges as w e do.A nd they're going to develop a good
airplane over tim e,so,you know ,w e have to figure out and w orking very hard
on w hat kind of relationship do w e w ant to have w ith industry over there.A nd
w hat kind of relationship do w e w antto have w ith the airlines in C hina.
D om inic
So how m uch of a threat is the C 919 narrow body jetliner that they're
developing that's supposed to be,I think,180 seats,approxim ately.Suppose
to enter service a 2016.H ow big a threat is that to B oeing?
A lbaugh
W ell,they're going to put som e of the new engines on them .A nd,you know ,
they're m ore efficient engines.A nd assum ing they get the airplane right and it
probably w on't be perfect the first tim e through.T hey could have an airplane
that com petes w ith a 737,yes.
D om inic
A nd w hatdo you do aboutthat?
A lbaugh
W ell,w e need to do several things about it,one,the B oeing C om pany gets a
prem ium for the airplanes that they sell.A nd w e get a prem ium on the
-14-
NLRB-FOIA-00009484
airplanes that w e sell because w e create value for our custom er and that's one
of the assignm ents that M ike B air has,you know ,w hat does the next
generation 737 or the next generation single aisle airplane look like? Is it a re-
engined 37,next generation,or is a brand new airplane? A nd w e're actively
looking at both of those options right now .A nd w e're looking at having a
capability,you know ,tow ards the end of this decade.A nd it's not just the
C hinese; it's also the C anadians w ith the C Series.It's also,you know ,
B om bardier,it's also E m braer w ho w ill have an airplane and potentially the
R ussians as w ell.
D om inic
So w here do you stand on this as part of the national debate,I think people
w ould be interested to know w hat the C hief E xecutive of B oeing thinks in
term s of this threat or m arket w hich is C hina to the U .S.Is it a m ilitary threat
or is it a vast m arket w e need to tackle?
A lbaugh
H ey,you're not going to get the head of com m ercial airplanes talking about
C hina's m ilitary threat,you know ,D om inic.A gain,I'll leave that to the
people of the Pentagon,and I'll leave that to the policy m akers in W ashington,
D .C .Y ou know ,you think about C hina and the U nited States,our econom ies
are dependent on each other,now ,and w ill be for the long haul.Y ou looked at
how far this relationship has com e over the last,I guess it's 35 years since
N ixon first w ent over there,and I think everyday w e get closer and closer
together.O ur econom ies get m ore tightly entw ined.It's not to say that w e
don't have the periodic bum p in the road,and yes,w e're having one of those
right now .B ut I think there's a lot to be lost on both sides if w e don't have a
good relationship w ith C hina.A nd I think that C hina has a lot to lose if they
don't have a good relationship w ith the U nited States.
E N D O F FIL E 3
FIL E N O .4
D om inic
Y ou know ,B oeing's first engineer w as C hinese born W ong T soo.A nd it's
been noted before that for a global com pany,B oeing's executive ranks don't,
have a surprising lack of diversity.I look,for exam ple,at your Indian
operations,and I see the success D inesh K eskar has had there,Indian born
executive and president of B C A in India.B ut I don't see that in C hina,there's
very few C hinese A m erican executives w hich is a little surprising given that
w e're in Seattle,w e're on the Pacific rim ,w e've got a great A sian A m erican
com m unity here.A nd think of the cultural im pact of G ary L ocke,the
G overnor of W ashington,going to C hina and trying to help sell B oeing
airplanes.H ow com e you don't have m ore such faces?
A lbaugh
Stay tuned.Y ou'll be the first person w e call,okay? A nd it w on't be long and
w e'll give you a call.
-15-
NLRB-FOIA-00009485
D om inic
O kay,thanks.W e're running out of tim e,so a few im portant topics to cover,
one of them is tanker.Y ou and other B oeing execs have talked about the
unique B oeing advantage of building both com m ercial platform s and the
m ilitary system s and how you leverage that.Y ou did it for the Poseidon
that's built and rented.So you installed all the m ilitary's hardw are in
line on private assem bly.Is that w hat's gonna happen on tanker if you w in it?
W ill you do that in E verett?
A lbaugh
W e w ill do as m uch as w e can in E verett.W e'll m ake all the structural
m odifications that w e can.W e'll install som e of the m ission-specific
equipm ent that w e need to m ake it a tanker.B ut the hoses and the drogues and
the bladders,som e of those things w ill be stalled,installed in W ichita.B ut as
m uch as w e can install upfront in line,you know ,that w ill drive the cost of
doing business dow n.A nd that's w hat w e plan on doing.
D om inic
W ell,the tanker R FP that just cam e out on,in the estim ation of outside
observers puts you in the favored position to...
A lbaugh
Y ou know I'm very intrigued by that.Y ou know ,it's very hard to w rite an
R FP for dissim ilar airplanes.Y ou know ,I think the U .S.A ir Force did a pretty
good job of doing that.I m ean,there are things in that R FP that w e don't like,
and,you know ,I understand from w hat I read in the paper there are things that
N orthrop doesn't like,but it's not a perfect R FP for either one of us and there
are puts and takes for both.Y ou know ,I read that thing and,you know ,I don't
read it as a lay dow n hand for the B oeing C om pany.A nd I'm assum ing that
N orthrop G rum m an is gonna bid.
D om inic
W ell,is there any sense of an em barrassm ent at the com pany that should you
w in it this tim e you've done it by a political backlash that caused them to rerun
the com petition?
A lbaugh
I guess I don't understand.I don't think that there's political backlash that
caused this thing to be re-com peted.I think the G A O took a look at the
decision-m aking process and felt that there w ere errors in how they cam e to the
decision they cam e to.I m ean,let's review the,let's review the tape here.W e
had 98 strengths,they had 30.W e had one w eakness,they had five.T here
w as no creditto be given for fuel offload above a certain threshold level;they
w ere given that.T he G A O looked at the decision-m aking process and it w as
flaw ed.T hat's w hy they're doing the,the re-com peted has nothing to do w ith
politics.
D om inic
B ut the C ongressional support that you have,you,w ay back as early as the
early 2000s w ere...
A lbaugh
Y ou know ,I appreciate C ongressional support,but I don't think there's been a
com petition that I've been involved in in m y career that has been decided by
people on C apitol H ill.T hey get,it gets decided by the procurem ent people in
-16-
NLRB-FOIA-00009486
the Pentagon based on their R FP and w here they don't m ake their decision
based on the R FP,new com panies have the opportunity to protest,w hich w e
I did and w hich w e do very infrequently and they found in our favor.
D om inic
A lbaugh
,O ne political issue that's com e into the w hole tanker debate is W T O and I'd
'like to go to that now .

.
Y eah.
D om inic
T he W T O found A irbus guilty of taking illegal subsidies and an outcom e in the
E uropean countersuit is expected this sum m er,w hich could find sim ilarly
liable,m aybe,m aybe not.B ut w hat I w ant to ask you is this; E m braer and
B om bardier w ent through this w hole thing suing each other at the W T O for
illegal governm ent launch subsidies,they w ere both found guilty and it didn't
change a thing.N othing happened and,you know ,B om bardier's m aking the
C Series now and they're getting governm ent m oney to help do it.So w hat's
the point? W hat,w hy,w here can these W T O suits go?
A lbaugh
W ell,you know ,first of all,you got to rem em ber,D om inic,that w e didn't
bring the W T O suit.T he adm inistration of the U nited States of A m erica
broughtthat suit.
D om inic
T hey w ouldn't have done so if you didn't w ant it.
A lbaugh
T hey broughtthe suit because in their view the U nited States and its industries
have been dam aged by illegal subsidies w ho w ere in violation of the W T O
rules and that's w hy the law suit w as brought and clearly the adm inistration
feels thatthose subsidies w ere illegaland the W T O feels the sam e w ay,at least
that's their,the prelim inary judgm ent that they've laid dow n.
D om inic
W ell,certainly som e people see it as politics...
A lbaugh
W ell...
D om inic
...to block,in partithelps to try and block the tanker.
A lbaugh
So,you know ,w e're building the 787 the old-fashioned w ay; w e're using our
ow n m oney.O n the 7,on the 8330,you know ,based on the W T O case,you
know ,they had launch subsidies of close to $6 billion.Y ou know ,that's a
significant advantage for them that w e don't enjoy.Y ou know ,w e have to
cover our ow n costs.A nd,you know ,w e w ould've liked to have seen
som ething in the R FP that accom m odated the launch subsidies that they got.
It's not there and w e're com peting,w e're not crying foul,w e're gonna do the
bestw e can w ith the proposal.
D om inic
D o you have any expectation about the outcom e of the countersuit,w hich is
ending this sum m er w here B oeing w as accused of illegal subsidies?
-17-
NLRB-FOIA-00009487
A lbaugh
B ased on everything I know ,I feel pretty good about the outcom e.O f course,
then again,D om inic,I thought w e w ere gonna w in the tanker contest last tim e.
A s I've told people,there's only one m ore,one person m ore surprised that w e
lost the tanker than m e and that w as R on Sugar,that they w on.
D om inic
Y ou m entioned earlier in this conversation that being num ber tw o in a duopoly
put you in last place and you don't w ant to be in last place.So since w e're
discussing this rivalry w ith A irbus,w here do you see that,how do you see that
playing out in the next few years?
A lbaugh
W hen w e start delivering the 787s in quantity and that's gonna start in 2012,
2013.Y ou know ,w e should,you know ,take the num ber one position,you
know ,relative to airplane deliveries.W e ought to overtake them in 2012,
2013,that tim efram e.B ut I think,you know ,longer term ,it's easy to get the
m ost orders and it's easy to m ake the m ost deliveries,all you have to do is just
give the airplanes aw ay.W e're not gonna do that.If I look out,you know ,10
years from now ,w e're gonna have a brand new 47,w e're gonna have a brand
new 87,w e're gonna have a m ajor upgrade to the 737 or a new sm all airplane
and w e're gonna have a m ajor upgrade to the triple 7 or w e're gonna have a
new 300 to 400 passenger airplane.I m ean,w e're gonna have a w hole new set
of products in the m arketplace and these are products that are gonna create
great value for our custom er and w hen you create value for the custom er
you're gonna sell airplanes and w e should be num ber one for a long tim e to
com e.A nd you know w hy w e're gonna be num ber one? It's because of those
75,000 people here in Puget Sound that get up in the m orning and put their
badge on and w alk to the,through the doors.I m ean,those are the people that
m ake it happen.A nd I could go tom orrow and they could replace m e pretty
quick,but it's the collective know ledge of our team that allow s us to do the
things that w e do and they're the ones that'll m ake it happen.
D om inic
T here's an expectation of restraint today in corporate the executive bonuses,
B oeing,a lot of B oeing's m oney,half of its revenue com es from the
governm ent and your laying off thousand of people right now ,but you've got a
special $3 m illion bonus on top of your regular bonus for staying,for
sw itching jobs.H ow is that justified?
A lbaugh
N o,they didn't,they didn't m ake m e any prom ises w hen I cam e here and I
didn't ask the board of the com p com m ittee for this and I certainly appreciate,
you know ,w hat they've done,but it's not som ething that I asked them to do
and,you know ,I do intend to continue to w ork here as long as the com pany
w illletm e stay.
D om inic
D o you understand w hy it doesn't look good to w orkers getting laid off w hen
executives get m illion dollar bonuses?
A lbaugh
W ell,m y job is to m ake sure that w orkers don't get laid off and I think that
I've got an unw ritten bond w ith the em ployees that m y job is to profitably
-18-
NLRB-FOIA-00009488
grow this place.I m ean,at the sam e tim e I'm asking them to be m ore efficient,
that allow s us to sell our planes for less,that allow s us to sell m ore planes,that
allow s us to create jobs or at least keep the level of jobs at the sam e,at the
sam e num ber that it's at today and that's w hat I think m y job is.
D om inic
O kay.I'm gonna stop there.
A lbaugh
O kay.
D om inic
T hank you very m uch.
A lbaugh
A lright,D om inic.T hanks.
-19-
NLRB-FOIA-00009489
U n ite d S ta te s G o v e rn m e n t
N a tio n a l L a b o r R e la tio n s B o a rd
2,041F IC E O F T H E G E N E R A L C O U N S E L
S .A .ivA dvice M
FORBISTRIBIJIll,101
em orandum
D A TE
TO
A pril11
Richard L. Ahearn, Regional Director
Region 19
FR O M
Barry J. Kearney, Associate General Counsel
Division of Advice
S U B =
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-00009490
Case 19-CA-32431
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 se -&-k
an order requiring Boeing to assemble in the Puget Sound area
the first ten 787 aircraft that it produces each month and to
maintain the supply lines for those aircraft where they
currently exist, in the Puget Sound and Portland facilities.
FACTS
The Boeing Company is an international corporation
engaged primarily in developing and producing military and
commercial aircraft. Boeing has a long-established collective-
bargaining relationship with the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) and certain IAM
District and Local Lodges. The parties' current collective-
bargaining agreement is effective November 2, 2008 through
September 8, 2012 and covers three separate bargaining units
of production and maintenance employees in three geographical
areas, the Puget Sound area in Washington; Portland, Oregon;
and Wichita, Kansas.
Section 21.7 of that agreement, entitled
"Subcontracting," sets forth various notice periods and an
opportunity for the Union to review and recommend alternatives
to Boeing proposals to, subcontract or "offload" unit work.
"[O]ffloading work' is defined-as--"mov-ing-wo-rk-from-one-
Company facility to another Company facility not covered by
this Agreement[.]" Less stringent notice requirements apply
to subcontracting and offloading decisions affecting less than
ten employees. In addition, the notice and review process
does not cover certain work transfers listed in subsections
(a) through (d), including "[d]ecisions to subcontract or
offload work due to lack of_capability_or_capacity, or to
prevent production schedule slippage[.]" Section 21.7
concludes with the following language:
Anything in this Section 21.7 to the contrary
notwithstanding, it is agreed that ... the Company has
the right to subcontract and offload work, to make and
carry out decisions in (a) through (d) above, to enter
offsets and offset arrangements, and to designate the
work to be performed by the Company and the places where
it is to be performed, which rights shall not be subject
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00009491
Case 19-CA-32431
-3
Boeing Introduces the 787 "Dreamliner"
The Puget Sound unit is comprised of approximately 18,000
employees working in Washington. Historically these employees
have performed the final assembly of all Boeing planes. In
late 2003, Boeing announced that it would place the assembly
line for its new 787 "Dreamliner" airplane in Everett,
Washington after the Washington State Legislature passed a tax
and subsidy incentive package totaling more than $3.2 billion.
That line opened in May 2007, with the capacity for producing
seven planes each month.
With the 787, Boeing departed from its previous practice
of manufacturing most of the aircraft parts with its own
employees and instead outsourced parts production to other
suppliers in the southeast U.S. and abroad. For example,
Boeing contracted with Vought Aircraft Industries in North
Charleston, South Carolina for the manufacture of the aft
fuselage and with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan for the
manufacture of the wings. Boeing repeatedly has had to
postpone the delivery dates for the aircraft, due primarily to
problems with suppliers and software issues.
Starting in mid 2008, the media began reporting that
Boeing would need to add a second 787 assembly line because of
its growing order backlog. At about the same time, Boeing
entered negotiations with the Union for a successor
collective-bargaining agreement. During those negotiations,
Company_ officials noted- the-need- for---a

second -as-sembly -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,
McNerney sent a long e-mail to Boeing employees about the
strike. McNerney stated that he understood and shared "the
frustration so many of you feel when we 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-00009492
Case 19 - CA-32431
-4
unreliable supplier to our customers - who ultimately provide
job security by buying our airplanes."
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
rike 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 --"s-ick- and tired" - of the union's strikes and was
looking to put the second 787 line elsewhere.
On April 16, Boeing and IAN 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. IAN representatives
included International President Tom Buffenbarger, General
Vice President Rich Michalski, and the Directing Business
Representatives who represented Boeing employees, including
District 751 DBR Tom Wroblewski. This was the first
opportunity for the parties to meet since the strike had
ended. McNerney and Buffenbarger were the lead speakers.
McNerney stated that Boeing's customers were losing confidence
1
In
his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
2
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).
Dates are in 2009 unless otherwise noted.
NLRB-FOIA-00009493
Case 19 -CA-32431
-5
in the Company because of past strikes and the possibility of
future strikes. He said that the parties had to come up with
a way to stop having Labor disputes. The general theme was
that management and labor should continue to meet to find ways
to avoid the problems of the past.
As a follow-up to this summit, Wroblewski and IAM
Aerospace Coordinator Mark Blondin met on June 23 in Seattle
with Conner and 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
expresse 13-0-0-i-trg'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. IAM
Local Lodge 183 represented the Vought production,
maintenance, and quality employees. Boeing agreed to
recognize the Union but wanted to negotiate a new collective=
barga-ining 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-00009494
Case 19 - CA-32431
-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
advantage in the 787 chase[.]" An article in the

Business Journal asserted that Charleston might be Charleston
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 jdb."
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
ir-thu - Union agreed to a_twenty-year no-strike agreement__
BaeThg 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 thecurrent four- 1-year contract in return
for some sort of neutrality agreement. At the end of the
meeting, the parties agreed to schedule negotiations for a
long-term agreement.
Meanwhile, the decertification election in South Carolina
was scheduled for September 10. In reporting on Boeing's
permit filings in South - Carol-in-a-,- the- PUTe-t godfid Business
Journal characterized this vote as "[a] wild 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-00009495
Case 19 - CA-32431
- 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
The Union lost the election in South Carolina eight days later
and was decertified on SepterZ77-1-8-7--------..
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 th-eg7761-1-d-IIs location by the end of October
.--and wanted the Union's input within the next three to four
w e e k s . H e s t a t e d , " I l o o k f o r w a r d t o o u r r e s p e c- t i v e- -t e-a-m-s
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.
L-
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_____

_
d e liv e rie s to - c u sto rn e fs. - T h 6 - Unionresponded 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- proposaly
- that- it -was - in- the- da-rk a -S--to what Boeing
wanted, and that in effect it was negotiating against itself.
For example, with respect to the length of the agreement, at
various points Boeing requested a contract ending in 2020 or
2022 but at other times, demanded a twenty-year agreement. In
terms of wages, Boeing wanted to reduce general wage increases
and move toward a profit-sharing incentive program. The Union
was not adverse to this concept but requested information to
insure that 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-00009496
Case 19 - CA-32431
-8
defined contribution plan for them rather than the defined
benefit pension plan that the existing employees enjoyed.
The Union repeatedly raised the issues of job security
and Employer opposition to the Union elsewhere. The Union
argued that in return for giving up the right to strike during
the long-term, employees needed enhanced job security. Also,
if the parties' relationship were to improve, the Union did
not want to face the type of anti-union conduct Boeing had
engaged in during the decertification campaign in South
Carolina.
At the October 15 session, Conner informed the Union that
the Board of Directors would be meeting on October 26 and he
wanted to give the Board a progress report on the
negotiations. The Union asserts that Boeing never described
the Board of Directors meeting as a deadline for resolving the
outstanding bargaining issues. Moreover, Boeing never
provided a concrete proposal that could be put to the unit
employees for a vote.
The parties met again on October 20 and 21. Conner
stated that Boeing was getting close to making its decision on
the location of the second line and it would be discussed at
the Board meeting on October 26. By the end of the parties'
October 21 session, the Union orally had proposed the
following: an extension of the existing contract to 2020, 3%
annual wage increases plus a 1% COLA, ratification_bonuses_for-
_ unit -employees7 - 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 P u g e t S o u n d a r e a ;

and
six-month advance notice and good-faith bargaining over any
decision to establish an assembly operation for any next
generation product. Boeing asserts that this "rough draft"
was the 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, o
October 21, B
ing posted its quarterly
earnings conferend
on_It-s"" Intranet site for employees.
With respect to locating the

second line in South Carolina,
CEO McNerney stated:
NLRB-FOIA-00009497
Case 19 - CA-32431
-9
[T]here would be some duplication. We would obviously
work to minimize that. But I think having said all of
that, diversifying our labor pool and our labor
relationship has some benefits. ... And so some of the
modest inefficiencies, for example, associated with the
move to Charleston, are certainly more than overcome by
strikes happening every three or four years in Puget
Sound. And the very negative financial impact of [sic] '
the company, our balance sheet would be a lot stronger
today had we not had a strike last year. Our customers
would be a lot happier today had we not had a strike last
year, and the 787 program would be in better shape....
And I 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 called Senior Vice
President of Operations Tim Keating to reiterate that the
Union was not seeking a true neutrality agreement. He wanted
to clear up any misunderstanding if that issue was blocking
the parties' ability to reach an agreement. Keating did not
respond, and no further negotiations were ever scheduled.
Meanwhile, the governmental bodies in South Carolina were
moving quickly to,,1 ,1,itate the second line's placement in
their State. OnCOctobeig, North Charleston approved
Boeing's request
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-00009498
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.
Boeing Announces its Decisions to Locate the Second Line in
South Carolina and to Establish a Dual-Sourcing Program
On October 28, Boeing announced its decision to Locate
the second 787 assembly line in South Carolina. In a press
release and internal e-mails, Boeing stated that the Board of
Directors had just approved the selection of North Charleston.
Boeing also announced that it intended to build a "surge line"
in Everett -- a temporary second assembly line that would be
phased out once the South Carolina line was up and running.
Boeing issued a memo to its managers on October 28 that
provided answers to anticipated questions from employees and
talking points regarding its decision. The managers were
advised to inform employees, among other things, that the
decision to locate the second line in Charleston would
"provide economic advantages by improving our competitiveness
and reducing vulnerability to delivery disruptions due to a
host of factors, from natural disasters to homeland security_
issues - and-work stoppagef:" -

The- rEemo further stated, "In the
final analysis, this came down to ensuring our long-term
global competitiveness and diversifying the company to protect
against the risk of production disruption ... from natural
disasters, to homeland security threats, to work stoppages."
On December 3, Boeing notified its fabrication managers__
_that it -intended - to- create - a -" d u a l s o u r c i n g " - pr

m
a n d
contract separate suppliers for the South Carolina assembly
line. As a result, employees in the Puget Sound and Portland
units who produce parts for the 787 assembly line are likely
to suffer a loss of work. Articles that appeared in the
Seattle Times on December 7 and the Puget Sound Business
Journal 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
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-00009499
Case 19-CA-32431
- 1 1 -
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
Integrated Defense Systems CEO to replace Carson.) The
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.
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:
Tpere's no question that whenever you go to a green field
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
EFTEainly 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-00009500
Case 19-CA-32431
- 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%. BoeingrT s-8-e-t---t-s----t-h-a-tth S'au.th_C-a-rietina
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
co u n te n a n c e - fu rth e r ---s trik e s ----T im e d ritr -a-q a-fri,- i n e - M

-ails to
employees, on its intranet site, in the media, and in talks
with the Union, Boeing tied its ability to compete to the
avoidance of future strike activity. Then, when Boeing
purchased the Vought facility in South Carolina, its officials
denied the Union access to employees at the facility. It also
let the employees know that it preferred to deal with them
directly rather than through their Union and their receipt of
the second line hinged on their vote in a decertification
election. Simultaneously, Boeing officials told the Puget
Sound unit employees that they could retain all of the 787
assembly work only by waiving their right to strike for twenty
years. Although the Union entered negotiations with Boeing
less than the "billions of dollars" that Albaugh claimed in
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00009501
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
and made major concessions in an effort to address its stated
concerns, once the Union was decertified in South Carolina,
Boeing courted the South Carolina legislature and applied for
the necessary permits from the South Carolina regulatory
bodies - even as it continued the motions of negotiating with
the Union. As soon as South Carolina approved the financial
incentives for Boeing, Boeing called off negotiations and
announced its decision. 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 ne --,;7 workforce, Washington was already up and
running, with the space, the necessary equipment, and a
significant complement of trained employees.
On these facts, we conclude that the Region should issue
a complaint alleging: independent violations of Section
8(a)(1) based upon Boeing's coercive and threatening
- - - --statements to employees on - the int-ranet 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-sourcirir773ry 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
aAsemble in the Puget Sound area the first ten 787 aircraft
that it produces each month and to maintain'77e su..ly lines
for those aircraft in the Puget Soun. .

and aci-ities.
NLRB-FOIA-00009502
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 - although

the
employer might want to insure itself against production
interruptions caused by employee concerted activity, "no such
insurance is legally possible, for the simple reason that
employees have a federally protected right to engage in such
activity. 12 The Board expressly distinguished an employer's
right to take defensive action when threatened with an
---------
5 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.
10
See id. at 520-21.
11
See id. at 521.
12
See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00009503
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
imminent strike from threats to transfer work "merely because
of the possibility of a strike at some speculative future
date. "13
The Board repeatedly has held that an employer violates
Section 8(a) (1) by threatening to withhold work opportunities
because of the exercise of Section 7 rights. 14 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).
Aelca Corp.-, 32-6-NIRB-1262-i--1265 (1998). - See -alsa- Dot8ey -
Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB 835, 851 (1999), enfd. in pertinent
part 233 F.3d 831 (4 th Cit. 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_tha_ w-ithholdtng-of-fu-rther -----
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 productions 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-00009504
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 21. During the call,
CEO McNerney made an extended statement about "diversifying
our labor pool" and moving work to South Carolina because of
"strikes happening every three or four years in Puget
Sound." 22 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
_
in_General_Electric-aviolative
- ---------
(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
See id. 339 NLRB at 1137.
20
E.g., Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc., 342 NLRB
1074, 1075-76 (2004) (employer "did not predict unavoidable
consequences").
21 Cf. Sheet Metal Workers Local 15 (Brandon Regional Medical
Center), 346 NLRB 199, 201-02 (2006), enf. denied on other
grounds 491 F.3d 429 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (newspaper report of
party admission is inadmissible hearsay because the reporter
was not available for cross - examination).
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-00009505
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 Puget 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 clualc_sourcing_program_______
to - sUppOrt -that line -iiiolated 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- gi-Ir-diredt- wor a w a y f r o m P u g e t
Sound employees 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
they resist testifying, and it becomes necessary to seek
subpoena enforcement, the Region should contact Advice.
25
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.
26
NLRB-FOIA-00009506
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -
assembling all of the 787 planes in Washington as originally
planned, once the second line opens in South Carolina, a
significant portion of the remaining 787 orders will be filled
by planes produced in North Charlestown. Future work
opportunities will be lost for employees on the "surge line,"
as well as unit , employees waiting to transfer into the more
desirable 787 jobs. There are likely to be transfers to
older, less desirable aircraft assembly lines, demotions, and
layoffs. Moreover, 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 may not, for unlawfully motivated reasons, divert
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 _o_f_the___
prasa- from- Standish - courd - reasoriEly 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-00009507
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
union facility after its employees' independent union
representative sought to affiliate with the UAW. 31
Here, as in Adair Standish and Cold Heading, there is a
diversion of unit work that the unit employees otherwise would
have performed. And as in Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co.,
the fact that unit employees may not yet have experienced the
financial impact of 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
See 332 NLRB 956, fn. 5, 975-76 (2000).

See also
Associated Constructors,3_2_5_NLRB_
sub nom. O'Dovero v. NLRB, 193 F.3d 532 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
(double-breasted employer unlawfully diverted work from its
union entity to its nonunion entity in retaliation for the
union's efforts to organize the nonunion entity and to escape
the collective -bargaining agreement). ,
32
Capehorn
Industry,
336 NLRB
_
_
364, 365 A2001)._________ _
33
See
id. at 365-67 (employer violated Section 8(a) (3) by
failing to immediately reinstate strikers upon unconditional
offer to return to work where there was no legitimate business
justification for entering into a permanent subcontract).
34
See
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-00009508
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
erection of "a dam at the source of supply of potential,
protected activity," the Board reasoned that, "the suppression
of future protected activity is exactly what lies at the heart
of most unlawful retaliation against past protected
activity. "36
Boeing concedes that it is removing work from the unit
employees based upon their past exercise of their right to
strike. However, Boeing relies upon the Supreme 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-00009509
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
future. 41 Instead, the Board found that "disfavoring employees
who were likely to engage in protected union activities" was
proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and the 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
strik-e disruptions is 1361-i-ed 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.
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
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.,

3 8 8 U . S . 2 6 , 3 3
(1967) (citation omitted).
43
NLRB-FOIA-00009510
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent. '"44 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
Boeing's actions were inherently destructive of employee
rights under the four principles articulated in International
Paper. First, the harm to employees' Section 7 rights was
severe; employees got the distinct message that if they engage
in another strike, unit work will be moved to a nonunion
facility and unit jobs will be lost. Second, 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_
econothi -d aeambei, and

the Union itself, and thereby hinder
any future collective bargaining. Third, Boeing's conduct
demonstrated hostility to the very process of collective
bargaining and riot just to support a specific bargaining
position. Finally, bargaining was made to seem a futile
_44 Ibid.,
quoting NLRB _v..._ Erie_Resistor_Corp.-3-7-3 U.S. 22-1- T -
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).
See 319 LRB 1253, 1269 (1995), enf. denied 115 F.3d 1045
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
45
46
Id. at 1269-70 (citations omitted).
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).
47
NLRB-FOIA-00009511
Case 19-CA-32431
- 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 its 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 _
Sbth C d Y 8 f i n -d - e m p l o Y e e s d i d n o t . A c c o r d i n g l y , B o e i n g ' 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).
III. The Union Waived its Right to Bargain
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).
48
See id., slip op. at 3.
NLRB-FOIA-00009512
C ase 1 9 -C A -3 2 4 3 1
- 2 4 -
w h e th e r th e U n io n w a iv e d its rig h t to b a rg a in o v e r th a t
s u b je c t. A lth o u g h w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d e c is io n w a s a
m a n d a to ry s u b je c t o f b a rg a in in g a n d th e re is s u b s ta n tia l
e v id e n c e th a t B o e in g d id n o t b a rg a in in g o o d fa ith to a v a lid
im p a ss e , th e R e g io n s h o u ld d is m iss th e S e c tio n 8 (a )(5 )'
a lle g a tio n s o n th e g ro u n d th a t th e U n io n w a iv e d it rig h t to
b a rg a in , a p p ly in g P ro v e n a . 50
A . M a n d a t o r y S u b jec t o f B a r g a i n i n g
U n d er D u b u q u e P a c k in g C o ., a d e c is io n to re lo c a te u n it
w o rk th a t is n o t a c c o m p a n ie d b y a b a s ic c h a n g e in th e
e m p lo y e r's o p e ra tio n is a m a n d a to ry s u b je c t o f b a rg a in in g
u n le s s th e e m p lo y e r c a n e s ta b lis h th a t: th e w o rk p e rfo rm e d a t
th e n e w lo c a tio n v a rie s s ig n ific a n tly fro m th e w o rk p e rfo rm e d
a t th e p rio r lo c a tio n ; th e w o rk p e rfo rm e d a t th e fo rm e r
lo c a tio n is d is c o n tin u e d e n tire ly a n d n o t m o v e d to th e n e w
lo c a tio n ; o r th e e m p lo y e r's d e c is io n in v o lv e d a c h a n g e in th e
e n te rp ris e 's s c o p e a n d d ire c tio n . 51 A lte rn a tiv e ly , th e
e m p lo y e r c a n d e fe n d b y sh o w in g th a t: la b o r c o sts w e re n o t a
fa c to r in th e d e c is io n ; o r if la b o r c o s ts w e re a fa c to r, th e
u n io n c o u ld n o t h a v e o ffe re d s u ffic ie n t c o n c e s s io n s to c h a n g e
th e e m p lo y e r's d e c isio n . 52 A p p ly in g th e D u b u q u e te s t, th e
B o a rd re p e a te d ly h a s fo u n d re lo c a tio n d e c is io n s to c o n s titu te
a m a n d a to ry su b je c t o f b a rg a in in g . 53
In a d d itio n , th e B o a rd h a s h e ld th a t a d e c is io n m a y b e a
m a n d a to ry su b je c t e v e n th o u g h th e re is n o im m e d ia te _ lo ss_ o f_ _ _ _
u n it jb b s . 54 F o r e x a riip le , in Q u ic k w a y T ra n s p o rta tio n , In c .,
50 P ro v e n a S t. J o s e p h M e d ic a l C e n te r, 3 5 0 N L R B 8 0 8 (2 0 0 7 ).
51 3 0 3 N L R B 3 8 6 , 3 9 1 (1 9 9 1 ), e n fd . su b n o m . F o o d & C o m m ercial
W o rk ers_ L o cal_ 1 5 .0 7 A _ v _ _ _ _ N L R B ,l_ F _ .-3 d 2 4 (D .C . C ir7 -1 9 9 3 -).
52 Ib id .
53 S e e , e .g .,
T ita n T ire C o rp ., 3 3 3 N L R B 1 1 5 6 , 1 1 6 4 -6 5 (2 0 0 1 )
(d e c is io n to p e rm a n e n tly re lo c a te e q u ip m e n t a n d jo b s in
re a c tio n to s trik e ); O w e n s-B ro c k w a y P la stic P ro d u c ts, 3 1 1 N L R B
5 1 9 , 5 2 1 -2 3 (1 9 9 3 ) (d e c is io n to c lo s e p la n t a n d tra n s fe r w o rk
to o th e r fa c ilitie s ).
54 S e e , e .g .,
O v e rn ite T ra n s p o rta tio n C o ., 3 3 0 N L R B 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 7 6
(2 0 0 0 ), re v d . m e m . 2 4 8 F .3 d 1 1 3 1 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (" W e th in k it
p la in th a t th e b a rg a in in g u n it is a d v e rs e ly a ffe c te d w h e n e v e r
b a rg a in in g u n it w o rk is g iv e n a w a y to n o n u n io n e m p lo y e e s,
re g a rd le ss o f w h e th e r th e w o rk w o u ld o th e rw ise h a v e b e e n
p e rfo rm e d b y e m p lo y e e s a lre a d y in th e u n it o r b y n e w
e m p lo y e e s").
NLRB-FOIA-00009513
Case 19-CA-32431
- 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 Lay 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 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
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
-ih- Boeing's - operation - or any change Eh - 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 - th-at - the Union -
could not have offered sufficient concessions to change its
See 355 NLRB No. 140 (2010), incorporating by reference the
rationale of 354 NLRB No. 80, slip op. at 2 (2009).
55
56 See 355 NLRB No. 77 (2010), incorporating by reference the
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
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).
57
58
See 321 NLRB at 617.
59
See Owens-Brockway Plastic Products, 311 NLRB at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00009514
Case 19-CA-32431
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009. Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
B.
- 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
Waiver of the Right to Bargain
The Board applies a "clear and unmistakable" waiver
standard to determine whether a union has waived its right to
bargain about a mandatory subject of bargaining during the
term of a collective-bargaining agreement. 60 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 - pha-se-s- thereof (subcontractingi[.]

This
right was "vested exclusively in the Employer" and was not
60
See Provena St. Joseph Medical Center, 350 NLRB at 810-11.
61 S e e
-
id. at 812, fn. 19.
S e e J o h n s o n B a t e m a n C o . , 2 9 5 N L R B 1 8 0 , 1 8 4 89 (1-989) (no
waiver of right to bargain about drug/alcohol testing
requirement where the management rights clause was generally
worded, issue was not "fully discussed and consciously
explored" during negotiations, and past practice of union
acquiescence to other unilateral work rule changes did not
waive the right to bargain about such changes for all time).
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-00009515
Case 19-CA-32431
- 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. 66
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
c o n t r a c t u w a -iver does - n-ot app-137- 56Se the pafties 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- 1-c17 t1 2 6 2 7
67
See Allison Corp., 330 NLRB at 1365.
68
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").
NLRB-FOIA-00009516
Case 19 -CA-32431
- 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
Thus, if there is a duty to bargain over a relocation
decision, it arises when the decision is announced and not
when it is ultimately implemented. See, e.g., Bell Atlantic
Corp., 336 NLRB 1076, 1086-89 (2001) (union waived right to
bargain over employer's decision to close facility and
transfer work to nonunion facility where,it_receive_d_notice_of_
d e c i s i o n i n - A u g u s t - ahd - d l d n O t r e q u e s t b a r g a i n i n g u n t i l
D e c e m b e r , e v e n t h o u g h n o u n i t w o r k w o u l d be relocated before
the following April).
69
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
71
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 ) d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a n employer
who suggests a midterm contract change to negotiate about it).
NLRB-FOIA-00009517
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
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, aTid- Mbre importdrif; --r-e d i -ance"); F e d e r a t e d
Logistics & Operations, 340 NLRB 255, 258 (2003), affd. 400
F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (employees will perceive that "the
Respondent and its managers are bound by the requirements of
the Act").
73
Three 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-00009518
Case 19 - CA-32431
- 30 -
month be assembled by the Puget Sound unit employees and that
the supply lines for these aircraft be maintained in the Puget
Sound and Portland facilities.74
B.
ROFs - 9
H:ADV.19- CA -32431 .Respon5e2.Boeing.dl

w
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-00009519
9000 M achinists Place
U pper M arlboro,M aryland 20772-2687
International
A ssociation of
M achinists and
A erospace W orkers
A rea C ode 301
967-4500
461110.
O FFICE O F TH E G EN ERA L V ICE PRESID EN T
D L 751
M ay 11,2011
Subj: C om plaint and R equest for Inquiry
Select C om m ittee on E thics
U nited States Senate
SH -220 H art Senate O ffice B uilding
W ashington,D C 20510
T o the Select C om m ittee on E thics of the U nited States Senate:
I am C hristopher C orson,G eneral C ounsel of the International A ssociation of M achinists
and A erospace W orkers. T he JA M is proud to be the collective bargaining representative for
thousands of B oeing C om pany em ployees in W ashington,a highly skilled w orkforce that has for
generations built the finest com m ercial airliners in the w orld for the com pany.W e are also proud to
represent hundreds of thousands of other w orkers in diverse industries across the U nited States and
C anada.
I am filing this com plaint and request for inquiry out of concern that one or m ore m em bers
of the U nited States Senate are interfering w ith and attem pting to halt a law enforcem ent proceeding
of the N ational L abor R elations B oard,in w hich the N L R B is addressing and attem pting to rem edy
illegal retaliation by B oeing against JA M -represented em ployees.T hese w orkers deserve to have
their case heard by the law enforcem ent agency that is responsible for protecting them ,according to
the rule of law , and not to have that process skew ed or stopped by pressure or bullying from
Senators.
O n A pril 20, 2011, the N L R B issued a com plaint against B oeing, based on unfair labor
practice charges that had been filed in M arch of 2010 by IA M D istrict L odge 751 in S eattle,
W ashington. T he m atter concerns assem bly of the com pany's new 787 D ream liner by IA M -
represented em ployees in the Puget Sound area.A s the com plaint recites,B oeing announced to the
press over the course of several m onths in 2009 and 2010 that it had decided to m ove a portion of
787 assem bly w ork to South C arolina. A ccording to the com pany's statem ents at that tim e, its
principal reason w as that its unionized em ployees had engaged in concerted activity in the past and
could do so in the future.It is undisputed that such activity w as and is protected by the N ational
L abor R elations A ct.
T aking w ork aw ay from em ployees in retaliation for legally protected activity is illegal
under w ell-established N L R B and judicial precedents.T he traditional rem edy is an order that the
NLRB-FOIA-00009520
w ork not be m oved.O n the facts and the law ,this case is fairly straightforw ard,a point m ade by
the N LR B 's A cting G eneralC ounsel,Lafe Solom on,in a press release on M ay 9 th:
"C ontrary to certain public statem ents m ade in recentw eeks,there is nothing
rem arkable or unprecedented aboutthe com plaintissued againstthe 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 it w as issued only after a thorough
investigation in the field, a further careful review by our attorneys in
W ashington,and an invitation by m e to the parties to presenttheir case and
discuss the possibility of a settlem ent. O nly then did I authorize the
com plaintalleging thatcertain statem ents and decisions by B oeing officials
w ere discrim inatory under our statute.
"Itis im portantto note thatthe issuance of a com plaintis justthe beginning
of a legal process,w hich now m oves to a hearing before an adm inistrative
law judge.T hathearing,scheduled for June 14 in Seattle,is the appropriate
tim e and place to argue the m erits of the com plaint."
A s the com plaint also m akes clear, the N L R B is only seeking to address the illegal
retaliation com m itted by B oeing and to correct the coercive effect of that retaliation on the
com pany's w orkers and their rights.T he com plaintspecifically states thatB oeing is free to m ake
non-discrim inatory decisions to place its w ork in South C arolina or elsew here.T he com plaintcan
be found on the N R L B 's w ebsite.1A s noted in M r.Solom on's press release,a hearing before an
adm inistrative law judge is currently setfor June 14 th in Seattle.
I am bringing this m atter to the SelectC om m ittee on E thics,because I am concerned that
one or m ore Senators have pressured and are continuing to try to pressure the N L R B to drop this
law enforcem entproceeding in possible violation of Senate R ule 43.
I believe that prior to the N L R B 's issuance of the B oeing com plaint on A pril 20 th,Senator
Lindsey G raham com m unicated w ith N LR B A cting G eneralC ounselLafe Solom on in one or m ore
attem pts to pressure him notto do so.A fter issuance,I believe thatSenator G raham continued to
com m unicate w ith M r.Solom on in one or m ore attem pts to pressure him to w ithdraw it.I also
believe that these com m unications included threats that the Senator w ould seek to defim d or
otherw ise adversely affectthe funding of the N LR B if the B oeing com plaintw ere pursued.Senator
G raham also m ade thatthreatpublically in a press release dated A pril20 th,in w hich he said,"A s
Senator,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."2
O n M ay 4th,Senator G raham joined 18 other Senators in a letter to President O bam a that
refers to the B oeing com plaint and urges the President to w ithdraw M r.Solom on's nom ination
(along w ith a nom inee to the N L R B 's B oard).T he letter goes on to state thatif the Presidentdoes
I http://w w vv .nlrb .gov/sites/default/file,s/docum ents/443/cpt_l 9-ca-032431_boeing_4-20-
2011_com plaint_and_not_hrg.pdf.
2 ttp://lgraham .senate.gov/public/index.cfm ?FuseA ction= PressR oom .PressR eleasea& C ontentR ecord_id= 74179e31-
802a-23ad-4e6e-3b1394738c8d.
NLRB-FOIA-00009521
not do so, "[w ]e w ill vigorously oppose both nom inations, vote against cloture and use all
proceduraltools available to defeattheir confirm ation in the Senate." Perhaps m ostim portantly for
Senate R ule 43,the letter m akes clear thatSenator G raham and the other Senators intend to take
these actions w ithout regard to the m erits or ultim ate disposition of the B oeing com plaint: i.e.
w hether B oeing had actually broken the law or not.3 C oupled w ith S enator G raham 's other
dem ands on M r.Solom on thathe w ithdraw the com plaint,itseem s clear thatthis letter is partof his
overalleffortto pressure M r.Solom on to stop a law enforcem entproceeding and to threaten his job,
regardless of w hether B oeing com m itted the illegalacts for w hich ithas been charged.A copy of
the M ay 4,2011 letter is attached.
T here m ay be other com m unications by Senator G raham w ith M r.Solom on,w ith other
persons in the N L R B ,or w ith persons outside of the N L R B thatshould be exam ined under Senate
R ule 43.The exam ples I have given show extraordinary politicization of a law enforcem entm atter,
and I do not believe that a Senator or any other politician should be trying to interfere w ith and
prevent a law enforcem ent trial. T his trial is the only chance for B oeing's em ployees in
W ashington to have their rights vindicated.T hey deserve to have law enforcem ent proceed
according to the rule of law ,and I am requesting thatthe SelectC om m ittee on Ethics take w hatever
action m ay be appropriate to protectthe integrity of the legalprocess.
I w ould ask the C om m ittee to consider the follow ing portions of C hapter 8 of the Senate
Ethics M anual.There m ay be other relevantsections.
"In review ing the type and nature of agency proceeding [as to w hich a M em ber is
considering intervention],the C om m ittee has recom m ended thata M em ber consider ...
the kind of agency involved and the nature of the agency proceedings....In review ing
the type and nature of agency proceeding,the C om m ittee has recom m ended that a
M em ber consider w hether the agency is perform ing a quasi-judicial,adjudicative,or
enforcem entfunction." (M anualp.178).The N LR B is the Federalagency charged w ith
enforcem entof the N ationalLabor R elations A ct.Itreceives charges from persons w ho
believe thatthey have suffered violations of thatA ct,and itw illissue a com plaint,after
investigation,w hen itfinds thatthe charge has m erit.T he com plaintis then fried to an
adm inistrative law judge in a form al adjudicatory proceeding that is on the record.
A ppeals m ay be taken to the five-m em ber N ationalLabor R elations B oard and thereafter
to a U nited States C ourt of A ppeals.T he N L R B 's processes w ith respect to D istrict
751's charge and the B oeing com plaint seem clearly to fit the "quasi-judicial,
adjudicative,or enforcem entfunction" language of the M anual.
R egarding intervention in agency proceedings,the M anualstates that"com m unications
w ith an agency w ith respectto a m atter w hich m ay be the subjectof litigation in courtis,
nevertheless,generally perm itted..w here the agency is not engaged in an on-going
enforcem ent,investigative,or other quasi-judicialproceeding w ith respectto the m atter.
..
.If (M anualp.179,em phasis added).Since the N L R B 's proceedings w ith respectto
the B oeing com plaint are clearly "an on-going enforcem ent,investigative,or other
3 The beginning
of the letter's fifth paragraph starts,"If the N LR B prevails ...," show ing thatthe w riters intend to carry
outtheir threats even if the com plaintis found to be m eritorious.
NLRB-FOIA-00009522
quasi-judicialproceeding," itw ould seem thatattem pts to pressure the agency and stop
its law enforcem entactivities should notbe perm itted.
In the portion ofthe M anualthatreprints partofthe 1991 K eating R eport,itstates on pp.
181 and 182 thatstricter standards are applied to intervention in agency proceedings that
are on-the-record adjudications as opposed to rulem akings.The M anualrecognizes that
on-the-record proceedings are,by their very nature,supposed to be conducted on a
form alrecord,and decisions are to be m ade only on that record.T hus,extraneous
influences are notsupposed to be partofthe process,and M em bers should be aw are of
that.The Boeing com plaintis an on-the-record adjudication thatw illplay outthrough
an A LT,the Board,and m ostlikely the courts.Its prosecution and the agency's decision
m aking should notbe pressured or altered extraneously.
In the M anual's discussion ofhow Senate R ule 43 m ay apply som ew hatdifferently to
agency rulem akings as opposed to adjudications,itm akes specific reference to a case in
w hich "a threatby a M em ber ofC ongress to cutfunding to an agency unless a particular
resultw as achieved in a rulem alcing w as deem ed 'extraneous'and sufficientto setaside
the agency action." (M anual,p.182).A s noted above,Senator G raham has m ade one or
m ore threats ofthis nature w ith respectto the Boeing com plaint,and the stricter ethics
standard for adjudicatory proceedings w ould indicate a fortiori thatsuch threats could be
violations ofR ule 43.
In cities and tow ns allacross A m erica,our citizens w ould cry foulifa councilm an used his
office to putpressure on a police chiefor a judge to drop a law enforcem entm atter.N o one w ould
think itacceptable for such a politician to threaten to cutfunding from the police departm entor the
courtsystem or to threaten the job ofthe police chief,in order to preventa law enforcem entm atter
from being presented to a judge.Politicalinterference in order to stop the trialof an influential
person charged w ith violating the law is w rong under the rule of law .I hope Senate R ule 43
em bodies such com m onsense restraints on m em bers ofthe -U nited States Senate.
I appreciate the SelectC om m ittee's consideration ofthis com plaintand requestfor inquiry.
I can b e reached at the address given above or by phone (301-967-4510) or em ail
(ccorsoniam aw .org).I w ould be glad to cooperate w ith the SelectC om m ittee in any w ay I can.
Sincer
O pher T.C orson
G EN ER A L C O U N SEL
InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and
A erospace W orkers
C TC /rc
A ttachm ent
NLRB-FOIA-00009523
,..
A lle n , C O n s ta n c e
F ro m :
K arsh, A aron
S en t:
W ednesday, M ay 26, 2010 7:54 A M
To:
A dvice
S u b ject:
F W : B oeing C om pany, C ase 19-C A -32431
P age 1 of 1
A ttach m en ts: A D V .19-C A -32431.B oeing.M em o to A dvice and S pecialLit. req. P erm ission to S ubpoena
V ideo T ape pdf
F ro m : K earney, B arry J.
S e n t: T uesday, M ay 25, 2010 5:27 P M
T o : S ophir, Jaym e; K arsh, A aron
S u b je c t: F w : B oeing C om pany, C ase 19-C A -32431
S ent from m y B lackB erry W ireless H andheld
F ro m : E step, S usan C .
T o : K earney, B arry J.; M oskow itz, E ric G .
C c: B aniszew ski, Joseph; A hearn, R ichard L.
S e n t: T ue M ay 25 17:11:44 2010
S u b je c t: B oeing C om pany, C ase 19-C A -32431
P er R egionalD irector A hearn's instructions, attached is a m em o requesting guidance in the above case.
S usan C . E step, S ecretary to the R egionalD irector
N LR B , R egion 19, S eattle
206.220.6333; F A X 206. 220.6305
5/26/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00009524
U N IT E D S T A T E S G O V E R N M E N T
N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s B o ard
M em orandum
B arry J.K earney,A ssociate G eneralC ounsel
D ivision ofA dvice
TO .
D A TE :
M ay 25,2010
r-1
Eric G .M oskow itz,A ssistant G eneralC ounsel
SpecialLitigation B ranch
R ichard L.A heam ,R egionalD irector
R egion 19,S eattle,W A
FR O M :
S U B JE C T:
22
(.1 1
'1)
B oeing C om pany
C ase 19-C A -32431
This R egion is currently investigating charge 19-C A -32431 filed by the IA M & A W against
T h e B o ein g C o m p an y. A s p art o f th e in vestig atio n , th e assig n ed B o ard A g en t is
seekin g a vid eo tap e fro m th e S eattle T im es n ew sp ap er. A s C H M 11770.4 req u ires
clearance from H eadquarters prior to the issuance of an investigative subpoena w here
"the subpoena seeks evidence from a m em ber of the press to elicit testim ony relating to
inform ation g ained in h is or her profession al cap acity or requirin g the pro duction of
m aterials secured as a result of new s gathering activities," Iam subm itting this request.
The E m ployer,a m anufacturer of airplanes,announced in O ctober 2009 that it w ould be
p lacin g a seco n d assem b ly lin e fo r th e 787 D ream lin er in S o u th C aro lin a at its n o n -
union facility instead of at its union-represented facility in E verett,W ashington w here the
first assem b ly lin e is lo cated . T h e ch arg e alleg es, am o n g o th er item s, th at th e
E m ployer placed the second line in S outh C arolina in retaliation for the unit em ployees
engaging in strikes in 2008 and prior years.
In M arch 2010, a lo cal rep o rter fo r th e S eattle T im es new spaper video-taped his
interview w ith Jim A lb aug h, C E O of B o eing C om m ercial A irplanes. In that three-p art
in terview , M r. A lb au g h states B o ein g 's reaso n s fo r p lacin g th e seco n d lin e in S o u th
C arolina labor strife and increased w ages.Thus,the R egion seeks possession of the
video as it contains direct statem ents from a B oeing officialregarding B oeing's reasons
for placing the second line in S .C arolina.
W e requested the video from the S eattle Tim es, w hich is available for purchase at $35
for each of three tapes,but the follow ing restrictions w ere placed on the use of the video
under those circum stances.
Purchase ofvideo does nottransfer copyrightand is for personaluse only.
N o m odelor property release exists.
O nly Seattle Tim es staffproduced video is for purchase.
Videos are digitalform at,burned on a D VD atleast840 resolution or m ore
NLRB-FOIA-00009525
C ase 19-C A -32431
-2-
M ay 25,2010
N o posting online,w ebsite or use in blogs.
Video is intended for editorialuse and notto be used for prom otion or advertisem ent.
Video is provided to you as is for your personaluse only and m ay not be copied,reproduced,disbibuted,broadcast,displayed,
sold,licensed or otherw ise exploited for any other purpose w hatsoever.
Ifyou are interested In licensing video contentfor com m ercialuse,please contactus at eedenseseattletIm es.com .
A s su ch , w e w ish to su b p o en a th e vid eo tap e in o rd er to n o t b e lim ited b y th e
new spaper's use restrictions.
Please advise.
R .L.A .
cc: Jo e B an iszew ski, D ep u ty A G C
D ivision of O perations M anagem ent
NLRB-FOIA-00009526
t.
P age 1 of1
A lle n , C o n s ta n c e
F ro m :
K arsh, A aron
S en t:
W edn esday, M a y 26, 2 010 7:54 A M
To:
A d vice
S u b ject:
F W : B oeing C om pany, C ase 19-C A -32431
A ttach m en ts: A D V .1 9-C A -324 31.B oe ing.M em o to A dvice and S pecial L it. req. P erm ission to S ubp oena
V id e o T a p e .p d f
S e n t: T uesday, M ay 25, 2010 5:27 P M
T o : S ophir, Jaym e; K arsh, A aron
S u b je c t: F w : B oeing C om pany, C ase 19-C A -32431
S ent from m y B lackB erry W ireless H andheld
F ro m : E step, S usan C .
T o : K earney, B arry J.; M oskow itz, E ric G .
C c: B aniszew ski, Joseph; A hearn, R ichard L.
S e n t: T ue M ay 25 1 7:11:4 4 201 0
S u b je c t: B oeing C om pany, C ase 19-C A -32431
P er R e gional D ire ctor A he arn's instruction s, attached is a m em o req uesting guidan ce in the above case.
S usan C . E ste p, S ecre tary to the R egion al D ire ctor
N LR B , R egion 19, S eattle
2 06 .2 20 .6 33 3; F A X 20 6. 22 0 .63 0 5
5/26/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00009527
N atio n al L ab o r R elatio n s B o ard
M em orandum
TO
B arry J. K earney, A ssociate G eneralC ounsel
D ivision of A dvice
E ric G . M oskow itz, A ssistant G eneralC ounsel
S pecialLitigation B ranch
......
D A TE :
M ay 25,2010
..ec...
-:
*.:
....
-.7.cr.i
S U B JE C T :
R ichard L. A hearn, R egionalD irector
R egion 19, S eattle, W A
C ")C D
......
....6.
N .)
Cr
1->
F R O M :
CA 7.-
c9
N .)
0
.....---rim n
C -,
r...)'.4:
c)i-7)
Lia r i
.I
c..-.)
B oeing C om pany
C ase 19-C A -32431
T his R egion is currently investigating charge 19-C A -32431 filed by the IA M & A W against
T h e B o e in g C o m p a n y. A s p a rt o f th e in ve stig a tio n , th e a ssig n e d B o a rd A g e n t is
se e kin g a vid e o ta p e fro m th e S eattle T im es n e w sp a p e r. A s C H M 1 1 7 7 0 .4 re q u ire s
clearance from H eadquarters prior to the issuance of an investigative subpoena w here
"the subpoena seeks evidence from a m em ber of the press to elicit testim ony relating to
in fo rm a tio n g a in e d in h is o r h e r p ro fe ssio n a l ca p a city o r re q u irin g th e p ro d u ctio n o f
m aterials secured as a result of new s gathering activities," I am subm itting this request.
T he E m ployer, a m anufacturer of airplanes, announced in O ctober 2009 that it w ould be
p la cin g a se co n d a sse m b ly lin e fo r th e 7 8 7 D re a m lin e r in S o u th C a ro lin a a t its n o n -
union facility instead of at its union-represented facility in E verett, W ashington w here the
first a sse m b ly lin e is lo ca te d . T h e ch a rg e a lle g e s, a m o n g o th e r ite m s, th a t th e
E m ployer placed the second line in S outh C arolina in retaliation for the unit em ployees
In M a rch 2 0 1 0 , a lo ca l re p o rte r fo r th e S ea ttle T im es n e w sp a p e r vid e o -ta p e d h is
in te rvie w w ith Jim A lb a u g h , C E O o f B o e in g C o m m e rcia l A irp la n e s. In th a t th re e -p a rt
in te rvie w , M r. A lb a u g h sta te s B o e in g 's re a so n s fo r p la cin g th e se co n d lin e in S o u th
C arolina labor strife and increased w ages. T hus, the R egion seeks possession of the
video as it contains direct statem ents from a B oeing officialregarding B oeing's reasons
for placing the second line in S . C arolina.
W e requested the video from the S eattle T im es, w hich is available for purchase at $35
for each of three tapes, but the follow ing restrictions w ere placed on the use of the video
P urchase of video does not transfer copyright and is for personaluse only.
N o m odelor property release exists.
O nly S eattle T im es staff produced video is for purchase.
V ideos are digitalform at, burned on a D V D at least 640 resolution or m ore
NLRB-FOIA-00009528

C ase 19-C A -32431
-2-
M ay 25,2010
N o posting online,w ebsite or use in blogs.
Video is intended for editorialuse and notto be used for prom otion or advertisem ent.
Video is provided to you as is for your personaluse only and m ay not be copied,reproduced,distributed,broadcast,displayed,
sold,licensed or otherw ise exploited for any other purpose w hatsoever.
Ifyou are interested in licensing video contentfor com m ercialuse,please contactus at eedensatseattlellm es corn.
A s su ch , w e w ish to su b p o en a th e vid eo tap e in o rd er to n o t b e lim ited b y th e
Please advise.
._...e.e."......................
...............
......-..
R .L.A .
cc: Jo e B an iszew ski, D ep u ty A G C
D ivision of O perations M anagem ent
NLRB-FOIA-00009529
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Estep, Susan C.
Sent:
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 3:57 PM
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
Sub. Req. for Boeing Draft
Attachments:
ADV.19-CA-32431.Boeing.Memo to Advice and Special Lit. req. Permission to Subpoena
Video Tape.doc
See attached.
Susan C. Estep, Secretary to the Regional Director
NLRB, Region 19, Seattle
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00009530
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
TO:

Division of Advice
DATE:
May 25, 2010
Eric G. Moskowitz, Assistant General Counsel
Special Litigation Branch
FROM:
Region 19, Seattle, WA
SUBJECT:
Boeing Company
Case 19-CA-32431
This Region is currently investigating charge 19-CA-32431 filed by the IAM&AW against
The Boeing Company. As part of the investigation, the assigned Board Agent is
seeking a video tape from the Seattle Times newspaper. As CHM 11770.4 requires
clearance from Headquarters prior to the issuance of an investigative subpoena where
the subpoena seeks evidence from a member of the press to elicit testimony relating to
information gained in his or her professional capacity or requiring the production of
materials secured as a result of news gathering activities, I am submitting this request.
The Employer, a manufacturer of airplanes, announced in October 2009 that it would be
placing a second assembly line for the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina at its non-
union facility instead of at its union-represented facility in Everett, Washington where the
first assembly line is located. The charge alleges, among other items, that the
Employer placed the second line in South Carolina in retaliation for the unit employees
In March 2010, a local reporter for the Seattle Times newspaper video-taped his
interview with Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. In that three-part
interview, Mr. Albaugh states Boeings reasons for placing the second line in South
Carolina labor strife and increased wages. Thus, the Region seeks possession of the
video as it contains direct statements from a Boeing official regarding Boeings reasons
for placing the second line in S. Carolina.
We requested the video from the Seattle Times, which is available for purchase at $35
for each of three tapes, but the following restrictions were placed on the use of the video
under those circumstances.
Purchase of video does not transfer copyright and is for personal use only.
No model or property release exists.
Only Seattle Times staff produced video is for purchase.
Videos are digital format, burned on a DVD at least 640 resolution or more.
NLRB-FOIA-00009531
Case 19-CA-32431
-2-
May 25, 2010
No posting online, website or use in blogs.
Video is intended for editorial use and not to be used for promotion or advertisement.
Video is provided to you as is for your personal use only and may not be copied, reproduced, distributed. broadcast, displayed,
sold, licensed or otherwise exploited for any other purpose whatsoever.
If you are interested in licensing video content for commercial use, please contact us at eedens@seattletimes.com.
As such, we wish to subpoena the video tape in order to not be limited by the
newspapers use restrictions.
Please advise.
R. L. A.
cc:
Joe Baniszewski, Deputy AGC
Division of Operations Management
NLRB-FOIA-00009532
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Boeing Company, Case 19-CA-32431
Video Tape.pdf
Rich:
Question: Has anyone in the Region determined from the Seattle Times what they mean by
Exemption 5
Eric
From: Estep, Susan C.
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 5:12 PM
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-00009533
N a tio n a lLa b o r R elations B o a rd
M em orandum
B arry J. K earney, A ssociate G eneral C ounsel
TO :
DATE:
M a y 25, 2 010
E ric G . M oskow itz, A ssistan t G eneral C ounsel
S pecial Litigation B ranch
FR O M :
R ichard L. A hearn, R egional D irector
R egion 1 9, S eattle, W A
S U B JE C T :
B oeing C om pany
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
T his R egion is currently investigating charge 1 9-C A -32431 filed b y the IA M & A W a gainst
T he B oeing C om pany. A s part of the investigation, the assigned B oard A gent is
seeking a v ideo tape from the S eattle T im es new spaper. A s C H M 11770.4 requires
clearance from H eadquarters p rior to the issuance o f an investigative s ubpoena w here
"the subpoena s eeks e vidence from a m em ber of the p ress to e licit testim ony relating to
inform ation gained in his or h er p rofessional capacity o r requiring the production of
m aterials secured a s a result of new s g athering a ctivities," I am subm itting this request.
T he E m ployer, a m anufacturer of airplanes, a nnounced in O ctober 2009 that it w ould be
placing a s econd assem bly line for the 787 D ream liner in S outh C arolina a t its non-
union facility instead of at its u nion-represented facility in E verett, W ashington w here the
first assem bly line is located. T he charge alleges, am ong other item s, that the
E m ployer p laced the s econd line in S outh C arolina in retaliation for the u nit e m ployees
engaging in strikes in 2008 a nd p rior years.
In M arch 2010, a local reporter for the S eattle T im es new spaper video-taped his
interview w ith Jim A lbaugh, C E O of B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes. In that three-part
interview , M r. A lbaugh states B oeing's reasons for placing the second line in S outh
C arolina - labor strife a nd increased w ages. T hus, the R egion s eeks p ossession o f the
video as it contains d irect statem ents from a B oeing o fficialregarding B oeing's reasons
for placing the s econd line in S . C arolina.
W e requested the v ideo from the S eattle T im es, w hich is available for p urchase a t$ 35
for each o f three tapes, b ut the follow ing restrictions w ere p laced on the u se o f the video
P urchase of video d o e s n o t transfer copyright and is fo r personalu se o nly.
N o m odelo r property release e xists.
O nly S eattle T im es sta ff produced video is fo r purchase.
V ideos a re d igitalfon nat, b urned on a D V D a t least 640 resolution or m ore.
NLRB-FOIA-00009534
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
M ay 25 ,2 0 1 0
-2-
N o posting online, w ebsite or use in blogs.
V ideo is intended for editorialu se and n ot to b e u sed for prom otion or advertisem ent.
V ideo is p rovided to you a s is for your personalu se o nly a nd m ay not b e c opied, reproduced, d istributed. b roadcast, d isplayed,
sold, licensed or otherw ise e xploited for any other purpose w hatsoever.
Ifyou a re interested in licensing video content for com m ercialu se, please contact us at eedens@ seattletim es.com .
A s such, w e w ish to subpoena the video tape in order to not be lim ited by the
P lease advise.
R . L. A .
cc:
Joe B aniszew ski, D eputy A G e
D ivision o f O perations M anagem ent
NLRB-FOIA-00009535
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Karsh, Aaron
W ednesday, May 26, 2010 7:54 AM
Estep, Susan C.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Video Tape.pdf
Thanks for the submission. In the future, please send Requests for Advice directly to the Advice Inbox, rather than to
Barry Kearney or any other individual.
Aaron Karsh
DAGC, Advice
To: Sophir, Jayme; Karsh, Aaron
Subject: Fw: Boeing Company, Case 19-CA-32431
--------------------------
Sent: Tue May 25 17:11:44 2010
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00009536
M em orandum
TO :
DATE:
M a y 25, 2 010
FR O M :
S U B JE C T :
B oeing C om pany
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
NLRB-FOIA-00009537
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
M ay 25 ,2 0 1 0
-2-
P lease advise.
R . L. A .
cc:
NLRB-FOIA-00009538
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pomerantz, Anne
Tuesday, June 01, 2010 5:47 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Extended Interview with Boeing CEO Jim Albaugh
OK I assume r-case hearing?
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 2:41 PM
To: Pomerantz, Anne
Subject: FW: Extended Interview with Boeing CEO Jim Albaugh
Lets discuss please.
From: Flanagan, Kevin P.
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Cc: Moskowitz, Eric G.; Platt, Nancy
Rich We received the following response from the Seattle Times. They seem willing to work with us,
but we need to clarify a few things.
Exemption 5
I plan on contacting Edens again to make sure the Times understands this process. Before I do, it would
be helpful to know what is the minimum number of copies you think we will need (assuming the case
goes to hearing)? Also, you mentioned in our last conversation that the Region would make a transcript
from the videos. How many copies of the transcript would need to be made?
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Evelyn Edens [mailto:eedens@seattletimes.com]
To: Flanagan, Kevin P.
Subject: RE: Extended Interview with Boeing CEO Jim Albaugh
Hello Kevin,
Thank you for your inquiry. We would be willing to burn the video interviews as they appear on our website for your limited
use. W e would require no duplication, no posting on any website and for the exclusive purpose of internal use and
possible entering into evidence. W e would charge the fee of $35.00 per disc ( 3 discs). Let me know if that will work for
your focused request.
NLRB-FOIA-00009539
Regards,
Evelyn Edens
News Business Development Manager
The Seattle Times
206-464-2299
From: Flanagan, Kevin P. [mailto:Kevin.Flanagan@nlrb.gov]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 6:23 AM
To: Evelyn Edens
Subject: Extended Interview with Boeing CEO Jim Albaugh
Dear Ms. Edens: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is interested in acquiring copies of the extended video
interview Dominic Gates conducted with Boeing CEO Jim Albaugh. The video is available online at the following
URL: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011673748_video%20_albaugh.html. You
previously referred our law librarian, Andrew Martin, to a website containing terms and conditions for personal use.
The NLRB intends to use these videos as part of an ongoing investigation. Furthermore, if necessary, the NLRB intends
to introduce copies of the videos into evidence during a potential hearing involving alleged violations of the National
Labor Relations Act. As such, the terms and conditions for personal use do not appear to contemplate the NLRBs
intended uses. Please let me know whether the Seattle Times would agree to these uses of the videos--that is, whether
the NLRB may acquire the videos without the restrictions for personal use.
Thanks,
Kevin
__
Kevin Flanagan
1099 14th Street, NW
Phone: (202) 273-2938 Fax: (202) 273-1799
Kevin.Flanagan@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-00009540
Microsoft Outlook
Snook, Dennis
'Evelyn Edens'
Ahearn, Richard L.
Extended Interview with Boeing CEO Jim Albaugh
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Ms. Edens:
This will confirm our conversation today that the NLRB will purchase 3 CDs regarding the
interview of Boeing CEO Jim Albaugh. When the CDs are ready, please call me @ 206-220-6317
and I will make arrangements for pick up. Our preferred payment of payment is via MasterCard credit
card.
Thanks for your assistance in this matter.
Dennis Snook, Office Manager
Region 19 Seattle, WA
To: 'Evelyn Edens'
Cc: Ahearn, Richard L.; Snook, Dennis
Evelyn I have confirmed that the terms you outlined on June 1st will work. At this time, the NLRB
intends to purchase only one copy of the videos but may purchase additional copies as the investigation
proceeds. Dennis Snook in our Seattle regional office will contact you to arrange for payment and
acquisition of the videos.
Thanks,
Kevin
Hello Kevin,
Regards,
Evelyn Edens
The Seattle Times
206-464-2299
NLRB-FOIA-00009541
To: Evelyn Edens
Thanks,
Kevin
__
Kevin Flanagan
Phone: (202) 273-2938 Fax: (202) 273-1799
NLRB-FOIA-00009542
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jablonski, Colleen G.
W ednesday, June 16, 2010 6:45 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
Todd, Dianne
Boeing
Dianne and I thought it might be a good idea to have a mini preliminary agenda in Boeing at the start of next week. The
thought is that Dianne can give us a general, verbal description of the evidence and we can discuss how to proceed.
Your view?
NLRB-FOIA-00009543
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Thursday, August 19, 2010 1:18 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
Assembly line
Rich,
There is an assembly line! It moves at 2 inches per minute. Heres a video.
http://www.reliableplant.com/View/6659/lean-moving-line-at-boeing's-737-plant
Dianne
NLRB-FOIA-00009544
Microsoft Outlook
From:
David Campbell <campbell@workerlaw.com>
Sent:
Monday, August 23, 2010 1:07 PM
To:
Todd, Dianne; Ahearn, Richard L.
Cc:
Carson Glickman-Flora; Jude Bryan
Subject:
Position Statements
Director Ahearn and Ms. Todd, Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this case last Wednesday. Since then I
have been working on position statements regarding 8(C) issues, and a statement regarding other defenses Boeing is
apparently raising. I am hoping that these can be considered before this case goes to Advice. I can definitely provide
them by Wednesday, but will provide them sooner if needed. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Thanks, Dave
Sincerely, David Campbell
campbell@workerlaw.com
Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt
18 W Mercer Suite 400
Seattle, W ashington 98119-3971
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
This communication is protected by the attorney client and attorney work-product privileges. Please do not copy, forward
or append.
NLRB-FOIA-00009545
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Newman, Clinton M.
Boeing
From Bloomberg.com:
Incentives offered by the state, including exemptions on sales tax and fuel used in test flights, may be $250
million to a little more than $400 million, depending on how you cut the apple, Sanford [Governor of SC]
said after Boeings groundbreaking ceremony for the new assembly plant in North Charleston.
Clinton Newman
National Labor Relations Board, Region 19
2948 Jackson Federal Building
915 Second Avenue
Seattle, W A 98174
Telephone: (206) 220-6283
Fax: (206) 220-6305
NLRB-FOIA-00009546
Microsoft Outlook
Todd, Dianne
Friday, August 27, 2010 7:39 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Pomerantz, Anne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
'
Pomerantz personal email
RE: memo in Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
See you then.
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 4:22 PM
To: Todd, Dianne; Pomerantz, Anne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Cc:
'
Subject: 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
Proposed Order
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009547
Ex. 5 Deliberative
From: Pomerantz, Anne
NLRB-FOIA-00009548
To: Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Subject: 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
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-00009549
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kobe, James
Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:30 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Reports needed for managing in NxGen
RCASES.DOC; INVESTIGATIONS by AGENT.xls
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009550
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009551
Case #
Case Name
Filed
Cat
10(j)
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009552
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009553
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009554
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009555
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009556
non-responsive
19-CA-32431-001 Boeing Company
3/26/2010
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009557
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009558
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009559
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009560
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009561
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009562
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009563
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009564
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009565
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009566
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009567
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009568
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Pomerantz, Anne; Ahearn, Richard L.
Intro to Boeing memo.
Ive included Annes language into the beginning of the memo as follows:
REQUEST FOR ADVICE
and
AUTHORIZATION TO SEEK 10(j) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Exemption 5
Any changes needed?
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 2:48 PM
To: Todd, Dianne
Subject: intro
Exemption 5
Anne P. Pomerantz
NLRB-FOIA-00009569
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Baniszewski, Joseph
Sent:
Wednesday, October 06, 2010 10:41 AM
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
FW: UNION CITY! 10/06/2010
Boeing 2008 strike
From: Metro Washington Council AFL-CIO [mailto:streetheat@dclabor.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:01 AM
To: Baniszewski, Joseph
Subject: UNION CITY! 10/06/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00009570
TODAY'S LABOR NEWS
Capitol Visitor Center
Workers Testify
In Congress
Local Unions Sponsor
Weekday Walks
For O'Malley
LABOR ON THE MOVE:
APALA'S Uno Moves to
DOL, Allan In As Interim
Deputy Director
Today's Labor History
ON THE LINE
Wednesday, October 6:
MD/DC AFL-CIO Get-OutThe-Vote Activities
AFL-CIO Labor 2010 Phone Bank
Thursday, October 7 5:30p:
DC Labor FilmFest: Who Killed
Chea Vichea? (Special Preview)
NLRB-FOIA-00009571
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
THIS JUST
IN: On Thursday, October 7,
President
Barack Obama will be at Bowie State
University
to support Governor O'Malley and
Maryland's
Democratic agenda. Doors open at 1p
-- 14000
Jericho Park Road, Bowie, Maryland
20715 --
and tickets are not required. Wear
your union
colors and bring a photo ID!
CAPITOL
VISITOR
CENTER
WORKERS TESTIFY IN CONGRESS: Capitol
Visitor Center (CVC) guides really know their
way around Congress. The newly-unionized
CVC workers wasted no time exercising their
voice at work, testifying last week about
workplace safety issues at the Capitol. Megan
Burger, a CVC tour guide and member of
AFSCME
Local
658,
testified
that
since the
union formed, CVC management has been much
more responsive to employees' needs, which
include better inclement-weather uniforms and the
ability to bring water bottles outside. Burger
testified at a September 30 hearing of the House
Transpor
tation
and
Infrastru
cture Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management, chaired by DC Del. Eleanor
Holmes Norton. Norton berated the Architect of
the Capitol for workplace safety issues and
called for studies into ways to make the Capitol
complex safer for visitors and employees,
reported Daniel Newhauser last week in Roll
Call. The hearing was called to
examine the safety of the Capitol
complex after an Office of
Compliance report estimated that
there are about 6,300 hazards
around legislative branch
buildings. The hearing marked
the first time that a
representative from the newly
formed Capitol Visitor Center union, AFSCME
Local 658, testified before Congress. In
another improvement, CVC workers will be
given permanent pagers next month in an
effort to improve communication within the
NLRB-FOIA-00009572
Capitol in the event of an emergency such as a terrorist attack.
- photo: Megan Burger, AFSCME
Local 658 (CVC), testifies in Congress last week; next to her is Wally Reed, President of AFSCME Local 626
(Architect of the Capitol)
FILMFEST TIX ON SALE NOW!: Tickets for the 10th annual DC Labor FilmFest - set for
October 15-19 at the American Film Insitute -- have just gone on sale. Click here to
reserve yours now and guarantee a seat at the best show in town!
LOCAL UNIONS SPONSOR WEEKDAY
WALKS FOR O'MALLEY: With less than a
month to go before Election Day, labor is
ramping up its door-to-door efforts for
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley (center) in
Prince George's County. Local unions are now
sponsoring weekday labor-to-labor walks,
including UFCW Local 400, which has been
turning out dozens of its members Thursday
and Friday evenings over the past few
weeks. "We're making sure that there's a
strong union vote on November 2," Tony Perez
(at left), Local 400's Government
Affairs Coordinator. "If all the
unions in Prince George's County
follow suit, Bob Ehrlich won't stand a chance," adds Metro Council Assistant
Political Coordinator Alya Solomon. CLICK HERE for the latest listing of
political activities in the area.
- photo by Adam Wright
LABOR ON THE MOVE: APALA'S Uno Moves to DOL, Allan In As Interim
Deputy Director: Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA) Executive
Director Malcolm Amado Uno joined the Department of Labor as a Special Assistant to the
Secretary with the Office of Public Engagement on Monday. "As a product of APALA and
the labor movement, I always considered it a privilege to work in this capacity to advance
worker, immigrant and civil rights," said Uno.
"In my new capacity, it is my hope to
increase access to the Department of Labor
for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders,
and all low-wage workers, to ensure that the
federal government is meeting their
obligation to improve working conditions for
all workers and assure that workers' rights
are respected and protected." Gregory Allan
Cendana, former President of the United
States Student Association, has taken
over as Interim Deputy Director at
APALA; reach him at 202-508-3733 or
gcendana@apalanet.org
TODAY'S LABOR HISTORY: First National Conference of Trade Union
Women (1918); 1,700 female flight attendants win 18-year, $37 million suit against
United Airlines. They had been fired for getting married (1986); Thirty-two thousand
machinists begin what is to be a successful 69-day strike against the Boeing Co. featuring
pay increase that averaged an estimated $19,200 in wages and benefits over four years
and safeguards against job cutbacks (1995); More info & ammo for unionists is available
online from Union Communication Services.
- photo: Boeing machinist Philip Bennett waves to a
passing vehicle as he pickets in front of a Boeing administrative building during a strike in 2008; photo courtesy
AP
NLRB-FOIA-00009573
Follow DC Labor on Twitter!
Material published in UNION CITY may be freely reproduced by any recipient; please
credit the Council as the source.
Published by the Metropolitan Washington Council, an AFL-CIO "Union City" Central Labor
Council whose 200 affiliated union locals represent 150,000 area union members. JOSLYN
N. WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT.
Story suggestions, event announcements, campaign reports, Letters to the Editor and
other material are welcome, subject to editing for clarity and space, and should be
directed to:
Editor: Chris Garlock
Assistant Editor: Adam Wright
streetheat@dclabor.org
Voice: 202-974-8153
Fax: 202-974-8152
Forward UNION CITY! to all your friends and colleagues or click here to spread the word!
If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for UNION CITY!.
This message was sent to joseph.baniszewski@nlrb.gov. Visit your Subscription
Management Page to modify your email communication preferences or update your
personal profile. To stop ALL email from UNION CITY!, click to Unsubscribe yourself from
our lists (or reply via email with "remove or unsubscribe" in the subject line).
Privacy Policy
NLRB-FOIA-00009574
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
W ednesday, October 06, 2010 1:44 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: letter to CIS
I havent been in on the Boeing discussions; I think
Exemption 5
but dont know the details.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 12:47 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: letter to CIS
Gracias! Hope you feel much better.
BTWI heard meeting on Boeing about to happenrecommendation?
Non-responsive
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009575
NLRB-FOIA-00009575
Non-responsive
Non-responsive
Non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009576
Microsoft Outlook
Mattina, Celeste
Monday, October 18, 2010 10:22 AM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Thank, Rich; I will keep you posted.
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 10:21 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste
Subject: Boeing
Celeste,
One thought; because of the high sensitivity of
might want to
a decision in this case , Lafe
Exemption 5
Good luck!
Rich
--------------------------
NLRB-FOIA-00009577
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Estep, Susan C.
Sent:
Friday, October 22, 2010 5:50 PM
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
Boeing Company, Case 19-CA-32431
Attachments:
ADV.19-CA-32431.Boeing Request for Advice and 10(j) relief.PDF
See attached.
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00009578
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009579
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009580
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009581
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009582
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009583
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009584
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009585
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009586
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009587
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009588
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009589
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009590
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009591
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009592
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009593
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009594
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009595
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009596
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009597
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009598
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009599
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009600
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009601
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009602
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009603
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009604
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009605
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009606
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009607
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009608
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009609
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009610
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009611
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009612
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009613
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009614
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009615
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009616
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009617
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009618
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009619
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009620
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009621
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009622
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009623
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009624
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009625
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009626
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009627
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009628
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009629
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009630
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009631
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009632
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009633
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009634
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009635
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009636
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009637
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009638
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009639
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009640
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009641
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009642
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009643
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009644
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009645
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009646
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009647
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009648
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009649
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009650
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009651
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009652
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
Nonresponsive
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
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009653
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
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009654
Case Name and
Number
Name of
Witness
Evidence Sought
Date
issued
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
Nonresponsive
C:\IGCShared\in\499\1.doc
11/4/2011
Page 2
NLRB-FOIA-00009655
Case Name and
Number
Name of
Witness
Evidence Sought
Date
issued
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
Nonresponsive
Boeing Company
CA-32431
Cust. of
Records
Information regarding second

7/28/10
(1) Sub-DT (Todd/Jablonski)
787 assembly and surge lines
Nonresponsive
11/4/2011
Page 3
NLRB-FOIA-00009656
Nonresponsive
11/4/2011
Page 4
NLRB-FOIA-00009657
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Todd, Dianne
Sent:
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 6:59 PM
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
FW: Boeing NLRB charge - re subpoenaed documents request #1
From: Lunt, Drew [mailto:dlunt@mckennalong.com]
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: Hankins, Richard
Subject: RE: Boeing NLRB charge
Dianne,
We should have clarified earlier, the parties agreed not to take notes during negotiations regarding the location of the
second final assembly line. Thus, no bargaining notes were taken by the Company's representative at any of the
negotiations.
Thanks,
Drew E. Lunt | Associate
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
303 Peachtree Street | Suite 5300 Atlanta, GA 30308
Tel: 404.527.8498 | Fax: 404.527.4198 | dlunt@mckennalong.com
From: Todd, Dianne [mailto:Dianne.Todd@nlrb.gov]
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 8:04 PM
To: Lunt, Drew
Drew,
I just wanted to confirm my understanding regarding the documents supplied in response to the first
subpoenaed item. Based on what has been submitted, am I correct in understanding that there are
no bargaining notes which were taken or used by any of the officials in any of the listed meetings?
Thanks
From: Todd, Dianne
To: 'Lunt, Drew'
Oh, Im sorry, I didnt realize that my assistant had separated the package. I have found the
documents. Thanks.
NLRB-FOIA-00009658
From: Lunt, Drew [mailto:dlunt@mckennalong.com]
To: Todd, Dianne
Subject: Re: Boeing NLRB charge
Dianne,
The subpoena response and supporting documents should have been in the same package as the waiver-issue
response. I will check with my secretary tomorrow to see what happened to it. W e will FedEx a copy tomorrow. If you
would like me to send it via email of fax as well, let me know.
Thanks,
Drew
From: Todd, Dianne <Dianne.Todd@nlrb.gov>
To: Lunt, Drew
Sent: Thu Aug 19 19:10:28 2010
Subject: Boeing NLRB charge
Drew,
I just wanted to inform you that although I received the Employers position statement on the waiver
issue and information regarding the surge line, I have still not received the requested subpoenaed
information. Will, or have you, forwarded this information to me?
Thanks,
Dianne Todd
Board Agent
NLRB, Region 19
Ph: 206-220-6319
Fax: 206-220-6305
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
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
intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not a
named recipient, you are prohibited from any further
viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any
use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have
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.
NLRB-FOIA-00009659
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:48 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: IAM meeting with AGC, Jan. 19
Thanks Rich Im glad you told me that so I can review
affidavits again before they come in.
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:32 PM
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: IAM meeting with AGC, Jan. 19
Debra, Thx.
BTW, as you undoubtedly know,
Exemption 6, 7(C) and 7(D)
Rich
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2011 10:23 AM
To: Contee, Ernestine R.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Katz, Judy; Omberg, Bob;
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW: IAM meeting with AGC, Jan. 19
From: Jude Bryan [mailto:bryan@workerlaw.com]
To: Willen, Debra L
Cc: David Campbell
Subject: IAM meeting with AGC
Ms. W illen,
In response to your email to Dave Campbell, the following people will be attending the meeting with AGC Lafe Solomon
next week.
Richard P. Michalski, General Vice President, IAMAW
Christopher Corson, General Counsel, IAMAW
Neil Gladstein, Director Strategic Resources, IAMAW
Mark Blondin, IAM Aerospace Coordinator
Tom Wroblewski, President, IAM District Lodge 751
David Campbell, Attorney
Carson Glickman-Flora, Attorney
Jude Bryan, Paralegal
Please let us know if there is any more information you need.
Sincerely,
Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP
18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400
Seattle, W A 98119
NLRB-FOIA-00009660
206-285-2828
NLRB-FOIA-00009661
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Todd, Dianne
Sent:
Thursday, January 20, 2011 3:22 PM
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
Boeing Document
Rich,
I have looked through the file and do not believe that we have emails from 2008. As far as I can see,
we only have the emails and memos issued after the placement decision was made in October 2009.
Sorry.
Dianne
NLRB-FOIA-00009662
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Baniszewski, Joseph
Sent:
To:
Willen, Debra L
Cc:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
Debra,
Thanks for the two E Mails re Boeing,
Regards,
Joe
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:21 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Katz, Judy; Omberg, Bob;
Baniszewski, Joseph
Cc: Ahearn, Richard L.; Willen, Debra L; 'Jude Bryan'
Subject: FW: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
To: Willen, Debra L; Ahearn, Richard L.
Cc: ccorson@iamaw.org; rmichalski@iamaw.org; Blondin Mark; tomw@iam751.org; David Campbell; Kathy Barnard;
Carson Glickman-Flora
Subject: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
Dear General Counsel Solomon and Regional Director Ahearn:
The following exchange occurred during Boeings Fourth Quarter Conference Call with Boeing CEO
McNerney yesterday. As you can see, he affirms that the Surge Line is still called the Surge line and is
temporary. He confirms that the 787 assembly work is being moved to South Carolina. He confirms they are
still in the hiring/training phase in South Carolina.
The conference call is available in full at
http://seekingalpha.com/article/248873-boein-ceo-discusses-q4-2010-earnings-call-transcript.
Operator
(Next question is) from the line of Mike Mecham with Aviation Week.
Michael Mecham
One thing you haven't talked about in quite some detail is just how productivity is there, how your development
for your production lines is going. You're working on Charleston, you're a slowly developing a backup line for
787 there in Everett, and of course, 767 lines coming on. Can you just go through how Charleston's coming
along and your whole outlook on your production lines?
W. McNerney
NLRB-FOIA-00009663
Well, Charleston is going along well. The final assembly capability we're building there for the 787 is actually
ahead of schedule. We're feeling good about its construction and the hiring of the people that we are currently
training to work in that facility. You're right, we have a surge line in Everett, which is a temporary line to give
us the flexibility to make sure we move the work properly to Charleston that we're going to move. So that's all
working well. The 767 line is, I guess, that really depends on tanker, yes or no. I think in either case, we have a
plan for that line to either morphed into a tanker line, and as you can imagine, spent a fair amount of time
planning on how we would do that and feel very confident of that move. And if we do not end up winning the
tanker competition, we think there's commercial demand that can keep that line open for a somewhat longer.
But I think everything's sort of in front of us. I think the bigger question is implementing all these rate increases
that really are a tremendous economic opportunity for the Boeing Co. over the next two or three years. And we
feel equally confident there. So production plan, you're on an important issue, production planning and
execution. We're spending a lot of time on it and we feel great about the opportunity in front of us.
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
cc:
Barry Kearney, Associate General Counsel
Ellen Farrell, Deputy Associate General Counsel
Jayme Sophir, Assistant General Counsel, Advice Branch
Miriam Szapiro, Supervisory Attorney, Advice Branch
Debra Willen, Senior Attorney, Advice Branch
Judy Katz, Assistant General Counsel, Injunction Litigation Branch
Robert Omberg, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Injunction Litigation Branch
Joseph Baniszewski, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, Division of Operations-Management
Tom Wroblewski, President, IAMAW District 751
Mark Blondin, Aerospace Coordinator, IAMAW
Jude Bryan, Paralegal | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98119-3971; Phone:
206.285.2828 Ext. 21; Fax: 206-378-4132 | www.workerlaw.com
This communication is intended for a specific recipient and may be protected by the attorney client and work-product privilege.
If you receive this message in error, please permanently delete it and notify the sender.
NLRB-FOIA-00009664
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:25 PM
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
FW: Boeing
Sorry I forgot you
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:55 AM
Cc: Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Subject: FW: Boeing
fyi
From: Kilberg P.C., William [mailto:WKilberg@gibsondunn.com]
To: Kearney, Barry J.
Cc: Blankenstein, Paul; McGill, Matthew D.
Subject: Boeing
Barry: I will give you a call tomorrow to follow up on our discussions regarding the ULP charge against
Boeing. In the meantime, I have looked at the five cases you cited to me that you believe provide legal support
for a potential complaint. I have given these cases a very careful review and do not believe that they support the
issuance of a complaint against Boeing. I ask that you share this with Lafe.
In my December 7 letter, I explained several independent reasons why the law does not support a
Section 8(a)(3) complaint in this case. First among those reasons was the absence of any adverse employment
action: no current employees at the Puget Sound plant have been harmed by Boeings decision, because there
will be no layoffs, work transfers, or any other change in their employment because of Boeings decision to
expand production at a new facility in Charleston.
You have suggested that the following cases could support a conclusion that Boeings employees have
suffered an adverse employment action: (1) Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. and United Mine Workers
of Am., 355 N.L.R.B. No. 197, 2010 WL 3813246 (Sept. 29, 2010); (2) Cold Heading Co. and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, 332
N.L.R.B. 956 (2000); and (3) Peter ODovero d/b/a Associated Constructors and ODovero Construction, Inc.
and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 324, 325 N.L.R.B. 998 (1998), enfd, ODovero v.
NLRB, 193 F.3d 532 (D.C. Cir. 1999). But these cases do not support an adverse employment action finding
in Boeings case.
The Pittsburg & Midway case involved the employers modification of an existing bonus plan in retaliation
against employees use of memorial (non-work) days to exert economic pressure, as they were contractually
allowed to do. Modifying an existing compensation plan to the employees detriment was plainly an adverse
employment action in that case. But in Boeings case, there was no plan that Boeing changed in response to
employee activity. Boeings selection of Charleston was an initial decision and did not violate or modify any
pre-existing plan. The Pittsburg & Midway case is also of dubious weight because it was issued after Boeings
NLRB-FOIA-00009665
Charleston decision (raising retroactivity problems), and also because the Boards decision is currently on
petition for review before the D.C. Circuit and has at least a reasonable chance of being reversed or modified.
The Cold Heading case is not on point. It was a straightforward runaway shop case where the employer rerouted and transferred equipment from a union worksite to a non-union worksite, because of union
activity. Those transfers were likely to result in layoffs at the union shop. In contrast, Boeing has not
transferred any work or equipment, and has no plans to do so. There will be no layoffs and no reduction in 787
production in Puget Sound now or in the future.
The ODovero case is another straightforward work transfer case, and is also not on point. The single employer
transferred work covered by the scope of the collective bargaining agreement away from union employees and
assigned it to non-union employees, because of union activity, leading to less union employment. Here, Boeing
is not transferring any work from the IAM. 787 production at the first final assembly line in Puget Sound will
not go down as a result of Boeings decision; indeed, the number of IAM employees will increase because of
Boeings surge line plans. No layoffs will occur either in the near term or long term.
You suggested that a fourth case, the Fifth Circuits decision in National Fabricators, Inc. v. NLRB, 903
F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 1990) (enforcing National Fabricators, Inc. and United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local 198,
295 N.L.R.B. 1095 (1989)) somehow limits the Supreme Courts statements in NLRB v. Brown Food Store, 380
U.S. 278 (1965) that recognized a broad scope of permissible employer actions and motivations to blunt the
economic impact of a potential future strike. The employer in National Fabricators committed an adverse
employment actionlaying off employeesin a plainly discriminatory way, by selecting only union
employees for the layoffs, violating its usual seniority rules. The employers discrimination against union
activity was so apparent that the Fifth Circuit and Board agreed it fit into the rarely-seen category of inherently
destructive conduct. National Fabricators was a simple application of the non-discrimination principle; it says
nothing about the ability of an employer to blunt the effectiveness of possible future strikes through nondiscriminatory capital investment decisionsa right recognized by the Supreme Court in Brown and again in
Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 454 U.S. 404, 416 n.9 (1982). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit's
decision does not even mention Brown.
Finally, you suggested that a fifth case, Dorsey Trailers, Inc. Northumberland, PA Plant and United
Auto Workers International Union and its Local 1868, International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, 327 N.L.R.B. 835
(1999), supports a broad view of the Boards remedial powers should a Section 8(a)(3) violation be found. This
case, you indicated, would support the remedy sought here: ordering Boeing to permanently expand 787
production in Puget Sound to ten airplanes per month. Although you mentioned only the Board decision in
Dorsey Trailers, that decision was later reversed, in the parts most relevant to Boeings case, by the Fourth
Circuit. The Fourth Circuit held that the employers relocation decision was justified by valid economic
considerations (including labor costs), and that ordering the closed plant re-opened was therefore beyond the
scope of the Boards power. The Fourth Circuits reversal on the relocation point and the re-opening order
gives the Boards decision below no effective precedential weight. In any event, unlike the employer in Dorsey
Trailers, Boeing is not reducing work in Puget Sound or planning any work transfers or layoffs, much less
shutting down the Puget Sound assembly line. The Boards decision Dorsey Trailers does not support the
proposed remedy here.
Best, Bill
William J. Kilberg
GIBSON DUNN
NLRB-FOIA-00009666
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306
Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1 202.530.9559
WKilberg@gibsondunn.com www.gibsondunn.com
NLRB-FOIA-00009667
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011 7:49 AM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Boeing Co.
Kilberg called yesterday and send no to the Union's offer. In Boeings view bargaining to
resolve the ulp would poison next tear's contract negotiations. However before Lafe finally
decides Ludig wants to talk to him on the telephone. They are not happy he changed his mind
on the no layoff pledge. Lafe is ready to pull the trigger but the drama continues.
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:00 PM
Subject: Fw: Boeing Co.
B,
I'm in Portland tonight...what prompted this?
Cheers,
--------------------------
Sent: Mon Mar 14 21:14:26 2011
Subject: Re: Boeing Co.
Let's talk Wed.
--------------------------
Sent: Mon Mar 14 21:13:33 2011
Subject: Re: Boeing Co.
--------------------------
From: Baniszewski, Joseph
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Kelly, David A.
Sent: Mon Mar 14 19:53:00 2011
Subject: Fw: Boeing Co.
Rich,
FYI, any idea when they expect to issue this?
NLRB-FOIA-00009668
Joe
------Original Message------
To: Lafe Solomon
Cc: Celeste Mattina
Cc: Barry Kearney
Cc: Ellen Farrell
Cc: Jayme Sophir
Cc: Judy Katz
Cc: Miriam Szapiro
Cc: Omberg, Bob
Cc: Joseph Baniszewski
Subject: Boeing Co.
Sent: Mar 14, 2011 2:58 PM
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-00009669
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
Monday, April 04, 2011 7:56 AM
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
FW: Call from Boeing
-----Original Message----From: Corson Christopher [mailto:ccorson@iamaw.org]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 7:29 PM
Cc: David Campbell; Canter Robin
Subject: Call from Boeing
Barry,
Thank you for talking to Dave Campbell and me earlier today.
Boeing's lawyer, Brett Gerry, called me at 5:00 pm. He said he is the lead lawyer for Boeing's commercial division.
His proposal was as follows. Since Joe Albaugh and Tom Buffenbarger are currently scheduled to have dinner in May,
Albaugh thinks that would be a good time to talk about these issues. I asked if the company had a proposal at this time,
and he said that there isn't one -- at least nothing that he would tell me about.
I talked with Tom Buffenbarger after Gerry called. Tom's recollection is that the dinner is set for May 16th or 17th. As
you can imagine, the thought of putting off any attempt to have a serious discussion with us for another month and a
half -- and even then just over dinner -- is simply unacceptable. The company is not being serious.
Frankly, I hope you as offended by this suggestion as we are. You and Lafe have worked very hard to bring about
discussions that could lead to a more comprehensive and tailored solution than we are likely to get from Board
processes and remedies. We have shown ourselves time and again to be serious about meeting in good faith with the
company. But you and we can't do it without Boeing, and it is crystal clear that Boeing is only interested in stringing us
all along.
Boeing made a commitment to you on Monday to contact us and then to tell you by the end of the week whether they
thought there were fruitful discussions with us to be had. I don't think that a company lawyer calling me at 5:00 on
Friday to say that the company has no proposal at all except that Albaugh and Tom Buffenbarger could discuss things
over an already-scheduled dinner in a month and a half comes close to satisfying what they promised you to do.
By mid-May the company will be much farther along in South Carolina, and our members in Puget Sound will, by that
time, know for sure that protected activity has become meaningless for them. Boeing hammers its retaliatory message
every day, and every day shows that the company is getting away with it. The Act means something, or it really doesn't.
The IAM sincerely appreciates all that Lafe and you have been trying to do, and we know that this case will be big. But
given what Boeing's chief officers have signaled to companies all across the country about how to retaliate against
organized workers for what the statute says is protected activity, this case needs to be big. You would like Boeing to talk
to us in good faith, and so would we, but it is crystal clear that such discussions are a false choice. The last three and a
half months (since the company met with Lafe and you in mid-December) show that they have no intention of engaging
NLRB-FOIA-00009670
with us. They have had months to call us and didn't, and they will shamelessly tell you anything to just keep playing for
more time.
The IAM hopes that time is up.
Thank you for all that we hope the Board will do, Chris Corson
Sent from my iPad
Christopher Corson
General Counsel
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers
9000 Machinists Place
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
301-967-4510 (office)
301-967-4594 (fax)
202-368-6484 (cell)
_____________________________________________________________
Notice: This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged and/or confidential information. Use
or dissemination by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
____________________________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00009671
Microsoft Outlook
From:
rich ahearn <richahearn@gmail.com>
Sent:
Saturday, April 16, 2011 9:54 PM
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
Complaint Revised
Attachments:
Boeing complaint revised
NLRB-FOIA-00009672
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009673
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009674
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009675
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009676
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009677
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009678
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009679
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009680
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009681
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009682
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009683
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009684
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009685
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Pomerantz, Anne
Sent:
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
Draft for submission to Advice
Attachments:
CPT.19-CA-32431.Boeing 4-18-11 at 4-14pm.doc
Importance:
High
Assuming you are alright with it.
Anne P. Pomerantz
NLRB-FOIA-00009686
e Ch
Exemption 5
e Ch
NLRB-FOIA-00009687
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009688
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009689
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009690
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009691
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009692
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009693
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009694
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009695
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009696
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gottschalk, Irving E.
Thursday, April 21, 2011 5:06 PM
Pye, Rosemary; Lightner, J. Michael; Kinard, Martha E.; Chester, Robert W .; Ahearn, Richard
L.
Non-Responsive
Then, yesterdays announcement of the Boeing complaint came, and he today
received angry inquiries from two Congressmen from South Carolina (where the Boeing plant in issue would be located).
He predicted a losing PR war, where we will be painted as job killers because Boeing is our countrys biggest exporter,
and the argument, rightly or not, will be that we are favoring the union at the expense of jobs in the U.S. generally and in
South Carolina particularly.
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-000096
NLRB-FOIA-00009697
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-000096
NLRB-FOIA-00009698
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-0000969
NLRB-FOIA-00009699
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009
NLRB-FOIA-00009700
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009701
NLRB-FOIA-00009701
Non-Responsive
From: Gottschalk, Irving E.
To: Pye, Rosemary; Lightner, J. Michael; Kinard, Martha E.; Chester, Robert W.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Thu Apr 21 17:05:30 2011
Subject:
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
yesterdays announcement of the Boeing complaint came, and he today
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-0
NLRB-FOIA-00009702
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009703
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-0000970
NLRB-FOIA-00009704
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-000
NLRB-FOIA-00009705
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009706
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009707
Non-Responsive
From: Gottschalk, Irving E.
To: Pye, Rosemary; Lightner, J. Michael; Kinard, Martha E.; Chester, Robert W.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Thu Apr 21 17:05:30 2011
Subject:
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
Then, yesterdays announcement of the Boeing complaint came, and he today
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009708
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009709
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-0000
NLRB-FOIA-00009710
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009711
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-
NLRB-FOIA-00009712
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009713
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pye, Rosemary
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 1:48 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Field Footprint Committee
Hard to believe Boeing gets more strikes than Airbus.
To: Pye, Rosemary
Subject: RE: Field Footprint Committee
Airbus is the only present serious competitor; although Brazil, Canada and in the future China are getting in the game.
From: Pye, Rosemary
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
Rosemary,
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-00009714
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009715
Microsoft Outlook
Pye, Rosemary
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Field Footprint Committee
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Non-Responsive
Rosemary
To: Pye, Rosemary
As to the training programs, I d be willing to serve (a relief to get out from Boeing!!) as long as no other conflicts (not
knowing exact dates).
Cheers,
rich
From: Pye, Rosemary
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
Rosemary,
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-00009716
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00009717
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Ahearn, Richard L.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00009718
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00009719
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009720
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009721
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009722
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Solomon:
tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00009723
April 27, 2011
Page 2
back to work.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
NLRB-FOIA-00009724
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00009725
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Todd, Dianne
Sent:
Monday, May 09, 2011 1:47 PM
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
Boeing timeline
Rich,
Here are the dates we talked about regarding the Boeing investigation. Let me know if you need
more.
Boeing was given a deadline of June 25, 2010, to provide documents I believe the documents were
submitted by the end of June.
Boeing filed its initial brief position statement on April 23, 2010, its substantive position statement on
July 9, and its 10(j) position statement on August 25.
The case was submitted to Advice on August 31.
Thanks,
Dianne
NLRB-FOIA-00009726
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Todd, Dianne
Sent:
Monday, May 09, 2011 2:37 PM
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
FW: Boeing timeline
Rich,
Just to be clear, one of the two submissions by Boeing on Aug. 13 was a response to our subpoena,
the other was a short position statement on a discrete issue.
Thanks
From: Todd, Dianne
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:47 AM
Subject: Boeing timeline
Rich,
more.
Thanks,
Dianne
NLRB-FOIA-00009727
Microsoft Outlook
Finch, Peter G.
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: seattletimes.com: Boeing will build next 787's first horizontal tails in Seattle
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I saw this last night.

IAM.
It's a very interesting development, and I wonder how it plays with
Speaking of which, I think that whatever the Union wants to convey/have conveyed to
Boeing
Exemption 5
Just my $.02.
Peter G. Finch, Field Attorney
National Labor Relations Board - Region 19
915 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98174
Tel.: 206.220.6285
Fax: 206.220.6305
e-mail: peter.finch@nlrb.gov
To: Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise; Finch, Peter G.; Harvey, Rachel
Subject: Fw: seattletimes.com: Boeing will build next 787's first horizontal tails in Seattle
--------------------------
From:
Ahearn Personal Email
Sent: Wed May 25 07:42:42 2011
Subject: seattletimes.com: Boeing will build next 787's first horizontal tails in Seattle
This message was sent to you by
as a service of The Seattle Times
http://www.seattletimes.com.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing will build next 787's first horizontal tails in Seattle
Boeing Commercial Airplanes chief Jim Albaugh confirmed for the first time Tuesday that the
company intends to do initial production work...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2015138417_boeing25.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
NLRB-FOIA-00009728
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-00009729
Microsoft Outlook
Pomerantz, Anne
Monday, June 27, 2011 1:23 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
greatest hits ??
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Nonresponsive
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)I have acted as the liaison with the Court of Appeals for the Boeing matter; procuring and facilitating use of
the space.
Anne P. Pomerantz
NLRB-FOIA-00009730
NLRB-FOIA-00009731
United States Government
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Advice Memorandum
DATE:
April 11, 2011
S.A.M.
TO:
Region 19
FROM:
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
issues relating to the Employers decision to place a second
line.
Specifically the Region requested advice as to whether:
elsewhere was based on the units strike history; (2) the
units strike history, even though no unit employees have yet
Union waived its right to bargain under the parties
Employers coercive and threatening statements; and a Section
8(a)(3) violation based on the Employers decision to locate
activity.
However, the Region should dismiss the Section
expressly waived its right to bargain about the Employers
decision to offload unit work to a facility not covered by
the agreement.
To remedy the chilling effect of Boeings
addition to the traditional remedies,

a notice reading by a
NLRB-FOIA-00009732
Case 19-CA-32431
- 2 -
high-level Boeing official.

To remedy the Section 8(a)(3)
seven planes on the first line.

Thus, the Region should seek
FACTS
District and Local Lodges.

The parties current collective-
Subcontracting, sets forth various notice periods and an
to Boeing proposals to subcontract or offload unit work.
[O]ffloading work is defined as moving work from one
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
offload work due to lack of capability or capacity, or to
prevent production schedule slippage[.]

Section 21.7
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00009733
Case 19-CA-32431
- 3 -
Boeing Introduces the 787 Dreamliner
employees working in Washington.

Historically these employees
have performed the final assembly of all Boeing planes.

In
line for its new 787 Dreamliner airplane in Everett,
suppliers in the southeast U.S. and abroad.

For example,
manufacture of the wings.

Boeing repeatedly has had to
its growing order backlog.

At about the same time, Boeing
During those negotiations,
Company officials noted the need for a second assembly line
the Unions bargaining position.

On October 6, 2008, Boeings
stock dropped to a four-year low.

That same day, CEO Jim
strike.
McNerney stated that he understood and shared the
frustration so many of you feel when we dont have the whole
team together working to meet the commitments weve made to
sustain and grow Boeing jobs[.]

McNerney went on to state,
[t]he issue of competitiveness as it relates to this strike
is a big deal[.]
He also tied labor disputes to problems
with Boeings customer relationships.

After asserting that
going back to 1995, he wrote, we believe this track record of
NLRB-FOIA-00009734
Case 19-CA-32431
- 4 -
unreliable supplier to our customers who ultimately provide
job security by buying our airplanes.1
The following day, Boeings Vice President for Government
conference in Everett.
In a Seattle Times article, he was
quoted as stating, We cant afford to become known as the
strike zone[.]
He reportedly also told the conference that
labor unrest could drive Boeings decision on where to build
planes in the future.

In an interview after his speech, Kiga
reportedly stated that his strike zone comments had been
cleared by Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Scott Carson.

Kiga
Northwest; Kiga then said that they would hate to lose a
treasure like Boeing.
among other things, eliminate the waiver language quoted
above.
Boeing refused to agree to such an amendment, and the
In early 2009,2 the media again began publishing reports
Senator Patty Murray had met with Boeings Senior Vice
the CEO was sick and tired of the unions strikes and was
On April 16, Boeing and IAM officials held their annual
summit in Chicago.
Management officials attending included
time, Vice President and General Manager of Supply Chain
Management & Operations Ray Conner.

IAM representatives
District 751 DBR Tom Wroblewski.

This was the first
ended.
McNerney and Buffenbarger were the lead speakers.
McNerney stated that Boeings customers were losing confidence
1 In his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
2
Union had struck.

In actuality, prior strikes
in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
NLRB-FOIA-00009735
Case 19-CA-32431
- 5 -
future strikes.
He said that the parties had to come up with
a way to stop having labor disputes.

The general theme was
with Conner and Boeings Vice President of Human Resources
Doug Kight.
The parties focused on how to build a better
labor relations.
Wroblewski thought that one of the purposes
of the meeting was to get to know Conner.

At a subsequent
meeting on June 30 between Wroblewski and Conner, Conner
expressed Boeings concern that its customers did not have
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
the Vought plant in North Charleston, South Carolina.

IAM
maintenance, and quality employees.

Boeing agreed to
recognize the Union but wanted to negotiate a new collective-
bargaining agreement.
On July 8, the Seattle Times reported that Boeings CEO
had informed Washington Congressmen Norm Dicks and Jay Inslee
Congressmen that South Carolina was the main competitor.
July, 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
that it had purchased Voughts plant, a South Carolina
employee filed a decertification petition.

During August,
stating that it preferred to deal with employees directly
NLRB-FOIA-00009736
Case 19-CA-32431
- 6 -
without intermediaries.3
Boeing also issued a FAQ document
at the Vought plant in late 2008 were due to the unique
situation created by the Everett strike.

Meanwhile, the
assembly line.
For example, The Post and the Courier reported
that South Carolinas low unionization rate is viewed as an
advantage in the 787 chase[.]

An article in the Charleston
Business Journal asserted that Charleston might be a better
choice in the event of decertification because of its
potentially tamer work force instead of the Washington
workers with a history of walk[ing] off the job.
On August 26, Boeing e-mailed its managers and human
where to locate the second line.

The following day, Boeing
a long-term agreement.
Carson informed the Union that the
if the Union agreed to a twenty-year no-strike agreement.
Boeing suggested a series of three-year agreements with an
the end of each of the three-year contracts.

The Union said
that this was not possible, but the Union would consider a
longer agreement than the current four-year contract in return
for some sort of neutrality agreement.

At the end of the
was scheduled for September 10.

In reporting on Boeings
permit filings in South Carolina, the Puget Sound Business
Journal characterized this vote as [a] wild card in Boeings
decision about where to locate the second line.

On September
2, Kight presented an hour-long video on Boeings website
... Theres a lot of issues to look at, a lot being
studied, no decision has been made.

But truthfully, it
The Union filed a Section 8(a)(5) charge alleging that
NLRB-FOIA-00009737
Case 19-CA-32431
- 7 -
customers cant live with it anymore.

So weve become an
unreliable supplier....
So we look at how do we become a
reliable supplier.
How do we ensure production
customers in a timely way and thats what were trying to
do.
and was decertified on September 18.
As a follow-up to the parties August 27 meeting in
Portland, CEO McNerney wrote to IAM International President
decision on the second lines location by the end of October
and wanted the Unions input within the next three to four
weeks.
He stated, I look forward to our respective teams
engaging in fruitful dialog.

Two days later, Boeing filed an
Carolina.
On October 1, Boeing applied to North Charleston
on October 1.
At the start of negotiations, Boeing explained
long-term agreement to insure no further disruptions in
deliveries to customers.
The Union responded that in exchange
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
2022 but at other times, demanded a twenty-year agreement.

In
and move toward a profit-sharing incentive program.

The Union
insure that Boeings measures of productivity were tied to
employee performance and not events beyond the employees
control.
At one point, Boeing stated that the general wage
increase and COLA could not exceed 3.5%.

When a Union
would get more.

On October 15, for the first time, Boeing
NLRB-FOIA-00009738
Case 19-CA-32431
- 8 -
and Employer opposition to the Union elsewhere.

The Union
the long-term, employees needed enhanced job security.

Also,
if the parties relationship were to improve, the Union did
Carolina.
negotiations.
The Union asserts that Boeing never described
outstanding bargaining issues.

Moreover, Boeing never
The parties met again on October 20 and 21.

Conner
the Board meeting on October 26.

By the end of the parties
annual wage increases plus a 1% COLA, ratification bonuses for
unit employees, an incentive pay program, health cost sharing
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
generation product.
Boeing asserts that this rough draft
was the Unions last and final offer, but the Union
that this would be the parties final session.

Indeed, the
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,
NLRB-FOIA-00009739
Case 19-CA-32431
- 9 -
[T]here would be some duplication.

We would obviously
work to minimize that.

But I think having said all of
relationship has some benefits.

...
And so some of the
Sound.
And the very negative financial impact of [sic]
today had we not had a strike last year.

Our customers
And I dont blame this totally on the union. We just
havent figured out a way - the mix doesnt - isnt
working well yet. So, weve either got to satisfy
McNerney stated that a decision would be made in the next
couple of weeks.
Conner stated that the Unions economic terms and demand for
neutrality were unacceptable to Boeing.

Michalski explained
of conduct.
Michalski stated that the Union was willing to
meet at any time for additional negotiations, but Conner did
not respond.
On October 24, Michalski called Senior Vice
Union was not seeking a true neutrality agreement.

He wanted
the parties ability to reach an agreement.

Keating did not
moving quickly to facilitate the second lines placement in
their State.
On October 23, North Charleston approved
Boeings request for a storm water permit, and the State of
South Carolina approved Boeings overall site plan.

On
Boeings startup costs and tax breaks totaling $450 million in
exchange for Boeings agreement to create at least 3,800 jobs
seven years.
That same day, North Charleston approved
Boeings site clearing permit.
NLRB-FOIA-00009740
Case 19-CA-32431
- 10 -
the Unions economic demands were too costly and its
The Union asserts, however, that Boeings failure to submit
any proposals, its rejection of the Unions serious efforts to
address Boeings purported concerns, and then its precipitous
On October 28, Boeing announced its decision to locate
the second 787 assembly line in South Carolina.

In a press
Boeing also announced that it intended to build a surge line
in Everett - a temporary second assembly line that would be
talking points regarding its decision.

The managers were
provide economic advantages by improving our competitiveness
host of factors, from natural disasters to homeland security
issues and work stoppages.

The memo further stated, In the
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
line.
As a result, employees in the Puget Sound and Portland
to suffer a loss of work.

Articles that appeared in the
Journal on December 8 discussed this announcement.

The
Repeated labor disruptions have affected our performance in
our customers eyes.

We have to show our customers we can be
a reliable supplier to them.

[The second production] line has
to be able to go on regardless of whats happening over here.
Dual-sourcing and co-production will allow us to maintain
customers.
NLRB-FOIA-00009741
Case 19-CA-32431
- 11 -
videotaped interview of Boeings new Commercial Airplanes CEO,
Jim Albaugh.
(Albaugh had moved over from his position as
Integrated Defense Systems CEO to replace Carson.)

The
interviewer asked Albaugh some hard questions on behalf of
the Washington community about Boeings decision to locate the
second 787 line in Charleston.

In explaining Boeings
decision, Albaugh repeatedly referenced the Unions strike
history.
For example, he stated:
haul.
And we had some very productive discussions
with the union.

And unfortunately, we just didnt
production stability.
And read [sic] that is [sic]
of wages.
And we just could not get to a place
Charleston.
[W]eve had strikes three out of the last four times
weve had a labor negotiation with the IAM.

... And
weve got to get to a position where we can ensure
our customers that every three years theyre not
going to have a protracted shutdown.
actually do deliver.
And we have lost our
Theres no question that whenever you go to a green field
site, theres risk involved.

At the same time, with the
certainly is the right one for us to make.4
Once again, a Boeing CEO grossly exaggerated the burden of
the Unions strike activity.

Boeing had alleged elsewhere
NLRB-FOIA-00009742
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -
At one point, Albaugh summed up the basis of Boeings
And it was not the wages were paying today.

It was that
three years.
We cannot afford to continue the rate of
because of Union strikes, stating, [w]ell do work here if we
lines and that we can be competitive over the long haul.
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
approximately 60%.
Boeing asserts that the South Carolina
ACTION
This case involves Boeings transfer of work from an
Boeings decision was motivated by antiunion considerations.
From the time of the Unions strike in the fall of 2008,
countenance further strikes.

Time and again, in e-mails to
avoidance of future strike activity.

Then, when Boeing
denied the Union access to employees at the facility.

It also
election.
Simultaneously, Boeing officials told the Puget
years.
Although the Union entered negotiations with Boeing
less than the billions of dollars that Albaugh claimed in
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00009743
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
the Union.
As soon as South Carolina approved the financial
announced its decision.

Boeings CEO admitted that the
overriding factor for moving work to South Carolina was the
employees strike activity.

Moreover, to reinforce the
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
months.
Rather, the delay resulted primarily from its own
problems.
finding of unlawful motivation.

While South Carolina would
for substantial capital improvements and the hiring and
training of a new workforce, Washington was already up and
8(a)(1) based upon Boeings coercive and threatening
statements to employees on the intranet and through the media;
and a violation of Section 8(a)(3) based upon Boeings
establish a dual-sourcing supply program in order to retaliate
activity.
We would also argue, in the alternative, that
Boeings actions were inherently destructive of employee
rights.
But the Region should dismiss the Section 8(a)(5)
about Boeings decision to offload unit work to a facility not
covered by the parties agreement.

Finally, to remedy the
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-00009744
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -
I. The Employer Violated Section 8(a)(1)
threats of reprisals violative of Section 8(a)(1).5

The Court
ruled in Gissel that an employer may make a prediction as to
the effects of unionization but that prediction must be
employers belief as to demonstrably probable consequences
beyond his control[.]6

On the other hand, threats of
economic reprisal to be taken solely on [the employers] own
volition violate Section 8(a)(1).7
at some future time.8

Faced with a union organizing drive,
the employer gave multiple speeches touting its two-source
supplier strategy.9
The employer stated that it had
plant.
The employer also made clear that the plants nonunion
employment.10
And the employer conveyed the message that the
plant remaining nonunion was an important, if not a decisive,
second manufacturing facility for the new motor the employer
planned to introduce.11
The Board concluded that although the
interruptions caused by employee concerted activity, no such
activity.12
The Board expressly distinguished an employers
See NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U.S. 575, 618 (1969).
Ibid.
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
See id. at 520.
10
See id. at 520-21.
11
See id. at 521.
12
See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00009745
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
imminent strike from threats to transfer work merely because
date.13
Section 8(a)(1) by threatening to withhold work opportunities
because of the exercise of Section 7 rights.14

Thus, telling
violates Section 8(a)(1).15

Similarly, in Kroger Co., the
of intraunion unrest and labor disputes.16
Further, where an employer unconditionally predicts a
without any factual basis, its predictions amount to
unlawful threats.17
Rather, an employers predictions of
customer disaffection must be based on objective facts.18
13
14
See, e.g., Kroger Co., 311 NLRB 1187, 1200 (1993), affd.
th
mem. 50 F.3d 1037 (11
Cir. 1995); General Electric Co., 321
1997).
15
Aelco Corp., 326 NLRB 1262, 1265 (1998).

See also Dorsey
th
part 233 F.3d 831 (4
Cir. 2000) (threat to close the plant if
16
311 NLRB at 1200.

See also General Electric Co., 321 NLRB
unionization could result in the withholding of further
17
employees independent union affiliated with the UAW);
would not be able to afford employers facilities if employees
unionized).
18
Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00009746
Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -
customers concerns about strikes, where the employer produced
contingency plans in the event of a strike.19

An employer may
also reference the possibility that unionization, including
to predicting
unavoidable consequences.20
Boeing officials violated Section 8(a)(1).

Some statements
were posted by Boeing on its website or intranet.

Others were
testifies.21
By contrast, reporter summaries cannot form the
basis for a Section 8(a)(1) violation.

And statements
(1)
Boeing posted its quarterly earnings conference call
on its intranet for employees on October 21.

During the call,
CEO McNerney made an extended statement about diversifying
our labor pool and moving work to South Carolina because of
Sound.22
His comments were indistinguishable from the
comments regarding a two-source supplier strategy found
violative in General Electric.23
(2)
Boeings October 28 memo to managers advised them to
disruptions caused by, among other things, strikes.

The
thrust of Boeings message to employees was that Boeing had
19
20
1074, 1075-76 (2004) (employer did not predict unavoidable
consequences).
21
Cf. Sheet Metal Workers Local 15 (Brandon Regional Medical
was not available for cross-examination).
22
These same comments were quoted in the Seattle Times.
23
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00009747
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
dual-sourcing system and contract separate suppliers for the
strikes.25
(4)
In a video-taped interview on March 2, Boeing
Employers decision to locate the second line in South
activity.26
II.
The Employers decision to locate the second 787 line at
a nonunion facility and to establish a dual-sourcing program
to support that line violated Section 8(a)(3) because the
Employer acted in retaliation for the employees Union
Initially, despite Boeings assertions that its decision
not adversely impact any current unit employees, there is no
question that the decision will direct work away from Puget
Sound employees with consequent adverse effects.

Instead of
24
to employees.
25
The authors of these articles will need to testify.

If
26
Vice President Kights video-taped comments that Boeings
customers could not live with this triennial disruption and
that Boeing was looking to insure production continuity
were first posted on Boeings website on September 2, outside
NLRB-FOIA-00009748
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -
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
layoffs.
Moreover, Boeings adoption of its new dual-
sourcing program means that the Puget Sound and Portland unit
layoffs.
If no unit employees have been harmed yet, it is
merely because Boeings retaliatory decision has not yet been
implemented.
not necessary to establish a Section 8(a)(3) violation.27

In
retaliation for the employees use of contractual memorial
days to engage in work stoppages.

Even though no employees
found a Section 8(a)(3) violation based upon the employers
retaliatory motive.28
Moreover, the Board specifically has held that an
impact on unit employees.29

In Adair Standish Corp., the
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)
employees.30
Similarly, in Cold Heading Co., the employer
27
28
Ibid.
29
th
in pertinent part 912 F.2d 854 (6
Cir. 1990).
30
See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00009749
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
union facility after its employees independent union
representative sought to affiliate with the UAW.31
have performed.
And as in Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co.,
financial impact of Boeings decision is no defense to a
Boeing admits that the overriding factor in its decision to
employees strike history.

An employers discouragement of
its employees participation in a legitimate strike
meaning of Section 8(a)(3).32

This applies to employer
conduct designed to retaliate against employees for having
engaged in a strike in the past,33 as well as employer conduct
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
Associated Constructors, 325 NLRB 998, 998-1000 (1998), enfd.
sub nom. ODovero v. NLRB, 193 F.3d 532 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
unions 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) by
34
See Century Air Freight, 284 NLRB 730, 732 (1987) (employer
1322, 1374 (1996) (employer violated Section 8(a)(3) by
35
See Parexel International, LLC, 356 NLRB No. 82, slip op.
NLRB-FOIA-00009750
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
erection of a dam at the source of supply of potential,
protected activity, the Board reasoned that, the suppression
activity.36
strike.
However, Boeing relies upon the Supreme Courts
decision in NLRB v. Brown Food Store37 to argue that it is
strike.38
Specifically, the Court found that the use of a
lockout and the hiring of temporary replacements to bring
pressure to bear in support of its bargaining position after
an impasse in negotiations was not an unfair labor practice.39
face of a whipsaw strike.40
Boeings attempt to extend the holding of Brown to
itself against future, wholly speculative, strikes would
vitiate the Section 13 right to strike.

And the Board has
right to strike.
Thus, in National Fabricators, the Board
expressly rejected the employers attempt to use Brown and
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-00009751
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
future.41 Instead, the Board found that disfavoring employees
who were likely to engage in protected union activities was
proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and the employers business
justification - to avoid investing money in employees who
were going to cease work later -- was neither legitimate nor
substantial.42
Boeings concession that choosing South Carolina will
result in duplication and economic inefficiencies further
demonstrates that Boeings actions were retaliatory and not a
legitimate business decision.

In addition, Commercial
a green field site, involves significant risks.

Boeing has
second assembly line in the Puget Sound area.

The substantial
facility therefore will be duplicative.

In addition, Boeing
Washington.
Exaggerating the disruptive effects of prior
with the Union for a long-term no-strike agreement.

In
addition, Boeings claim that it took this action to avoid
strike disruptions is belied by Boeings rejection of the
Unions efforts to negotiate a long-term no strike agreement.
striking.
We also conclude that Boeings conduct was inherently
destructive of employee interests.43

Conduct is inherently
destructive when it carries with it unavoidable
must have intended and thus bears its own indicia of
th
41
See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
42
Cir.
See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
43
See NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, Inc., 388 U.S. 26, 33
NLRB-FOIA-00009752
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent.44
In International Paper Co., the Board set forth
four fundamental guiding principles for determining whether
rights.45
First, the Board looks to the severity of the harm
to employees Section 7 rights.

Second, the Board considers
the temporal impact of the employers conduct, i.e. whether
dispute or whether it has far reaching effects which would
hinder future bargaining.

Third, the Board distinguishes
between conduct intended to support an employers bargaining
position as opposed to conduct demonstrating hostility to the
process of collective bargaining.

And finally, the Board
assesses whether the employees conduct discourages collective
bargaining by making it seem a futile exercise in the eyes of
the employees.46
Even if the employees conduct is
inherently destructive, the Board weighs the employers
employee rights.47
Paper.
First, the harm to employees Section 7 rights was
facility and unit jobs will be lost.

Second, Boeings
to take away employee support for the Unions most effective
economic weapon, and for the Union itself, and thereby hinder
any future collective bargaining.

Third, Boeings conduct
bargaining and not just to support a specific bargaining
position.
Finally, bargaining was made to seem a futile
44
Ibid., quoting NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp., 373 U.S. 221,
228, 231 (1963).

See also Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 327 NLRB
835, 863-64 (1999), enf. denied in pertinent part 233 F.3d 831
th
(4
Cir. 2000).
45
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
46
47
Id. at 1273 (finding no justification for employers
inherently destructive conduct of permanently subcontracting
bargaining unit work during a lawful lockout).

See also
Dorsey Trailers, 327 NLRB at 863-64 (employers closing of
purchased facility outside the unions jurisdiction was
inherently destructive of employee rights).
NLRB-FOIA-00009753
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -
Unions position at the bargaining table.
The unavoidable consequence of Boeings decision to place
media, was to severely chill its employees exercise of
Section 7 rights in the future - whether it be the Puget
employees elsewhere.
Employees will correctly fear that
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
comparatively slight, Boeing had no legitimate business
against its employees exercise of their Section 7 rights, and
employers conduct was inherently destructive where its stated
with the union.48

The Board found that the employers stated
reason - that it wanted to enhance its bargaining position
increase because employees chose union representation.49
Likewise, Boeings stated reason for its decision - that it
wanted to avoid strike disruptions - was an admission that it
the Puget Sound employees chose union representation and the
South Carolina employees did not.

Accordingly, Boeings
its employees rights to engage in union activity and violated
Section 8(a)(3).
The Unions allegation that Boeing failed to bargain in
787 line raises two preliminary issues: (1) whether Boeings
48
49
NLRB-FOIA-00009754
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
whether the Union waived its right to bargain over that
subject.
Although we conclude that the decision was a
mandatory subject of bargaining and there is substantial
evidence that Boeing did not bargain in good faith to a valid
impasse, the Region should dismiss the Section 8(a)(5)
allegations on the ground that the Union waived it right to
bargain, applying Provena.50
A.
Mandatory Subject of Bargaining
Under Dubuque Packing Co., a decision to relocate unit
work that is not accompanied by a basic change in the
employers operation is a mandatory subject of bargaining
unless the employer can establish that: the work performed at
the new location varies significantly from the work performed
at the prior location; the work performed at the former
location is discontinued entirely and not moved to the new
location; or the employers decision involved a change in the
enterprises scope and direction.51

Alternatively, the
employer can defend by showing that: labor costs were not a
factor in the decision; or if labor costs were a factor, the
union could not have offered sufficient concessions to change
the employers decision.52

Applying the Dubuque test, the
Board repeatedly has found relocation decisions to constitute
a mandatory subject of bargaining.53
In addition, the Board has held that a decision may be a
mandatory subject even though there is no immediate loss of
unit jobs.54
For example, in Quickway Transportation, Inc.,
50
Provena 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-00009755
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
the Board found that the employers decision to contract with
obviously constrained the work opportunities available to the
bargaining unit.55
Likewise, in Spurlino Materials, LLC, the
Administrative Law Judge, in a decision adopted by the Board,
work as a result of the employers subcontracting, existing
an expanded unit.56
And in Dorsey Trailers, Inc., the Board
was a mandatory subject because the potential loss of
detriment to unit employees even if no employees lost their
jobs.57
in South Carolina amounted to a relocation of unit work.

Even
therefore poses a detriment to unit employees.58

The work
unit employees.
The decision did not involve a basic change
in Boeings operation or any change in the enterprises scope
methods or its products.59

Boeing did not demonstrate that
labor costs were not a factor in the decision.

In fact,
according to Boeings CEO, the decision was motivated
escalating.
Boeing also did not demonstrate that the Union
55
56
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
57
134 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998).

Accord Acme Die Casting, 315
NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
58
59
NLRB-FOIA-00009756
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009.
Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
B.
we conclude that Boeings decision as to
The Board applies a clear and unmistakable waiver
term of a collective-bargaining agreement.60

The Board will
find a waiver if the contract either expressly or by
necessary implication confers on management a right to
unilaterally take the action in question.61

In interpreting
the parties agreement, the relevant factors include: (1) the
wording of pertinent contractual provisions; (2) the parties
bargaining history; and (3) the parties past practice.62
decision that the employer has implemented unilaterally.63
Administrative Law Judges decision that the union waived its
management the right to use outside assistance or engage
independent contractors to perform any of the Employers
operations or phases thereof (subcontracting)[.]64

This
right was vested exclusively in the Employer and was not
60
61
See id. at 812, fn. 19.
62
See Johnson-Bateman Co., 295 NLRB 180, 184-89 (1989) (no
worded, issue was not fully discussed and consciously
explored during negotiations, and past practice of union
63 See, e.g., Ingham Regional Medical Center, 342 NLRB 1259,
specifically, precisely, and plainly granted the employer
the exclusive right ... to subcontract).
64
See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00009757
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
subject to arbitration.65
Although another contractual
discuss with the union any subcontracting decision that
would cause unit employees to be laid off, the words discuss
and bargain were found not synonymous in the parties
contract.66
In this case, Section 21.7 of the parties agreement
specifically, precisely, and plainly67 granted Boeing the
agreement.
As in Ingham Regional Medical Center, the other
advantage of the waiver.

Specifically, the Union maintains
is unlawfully motivated.
But there is no authority for the
8(a)(3) violation.68
The Unions other arguments against application of the
waiver are also unavailing.

Thus, the Union asserts that the
contractual waiver does not apply because the parties entered
negotiations for a new contract.

However, during those mid-
Section 21.7 -- continued in effect.

The Union also contends
65
Id. at 1260.
66
Id. at 1262.
67
68
1275 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (merely because the Respondent has
sanctions of the Act prohibiting it from discriminating); RGC
th
(USA) Mineral Sands, Inc. v. NLRB, 281 F.3d 442, 450 (4
Cir.
2002) (enforcing Board decision finding Section 8(a)(3)
employer to unilaterally alter shift assignments, an employer
protected activity).
NLRB-FOIA-00009758
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -
contracts expiration in September 2012, but Boeing made its
South Carolina in mid 2011.69

The Unions estoppel argument
also lacks merit.

While Boeing took the position that the
Moreover, Boeings request to negotiate mid-term changes
to the parties agreement did not subject it to the
traditional Section 8(a)(5) bargaining obligations.70

Absent
modifications.71
For this reason, we do not reach the
69
when it is ultimately implemented.

See, e.g., Bell Atlantic
bargain over employers decision to close facility and
transfer work to nonunion facility where it received notice of
decision in August and did not request bargaining until
December, even though no unit work would be relocated before
70
reopener, and employer violated Section 8(a)(5) by
71
See Boeing Co., 337 NLRB 758, 763 (2002) (employer did not
incur bargaining obligation by agreeing to unions request to
NLRB 766, 766-67 (Section 8(d) does not require an employer
NLRB-FOIA-00009759
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
rights.72
The notice reading is particularly effective if
to dispel the atmosphere of intimidation he created.73
second line in Washington.

At the time of the discriminatory
aircraft each month on the first line in Everett.

At present,
problems with suppliers and FAA certification.

Thus, the
72
enfd. 273 F. Appx 32 (2d Cir. 2008) (notice reading is an
effective but moderate way to let in a warming wind of
information, and more important, reassurance); Federated
F.3d 920 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (employees will perceive that the
the Act).
73
1093 (1996).
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00009760
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.J.K.
ROFs - 9
H:ADV.19-CA-32431.Response2.Boeing.dlw
74
At this time, we do not reach a decision on the Unions
request for preliminary injunctive relief.

The Region should
case is tried before the Administrative Law Judge.

In the
regarding the chilling impact of Boeings violative statements
and conduct to support the notice-reading remedy.

This will
NLRB-FOIA-00009761
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent:
To:
Baniszewski, Joseph
Subject:
FW: Video - Boeing
Attachments:
2011237525_albaughvideo.html
FYI
From: Todd, Dianne
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:56 PM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Subject: Video - Boeing
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 4:25 PM
To: Todd, Dianne
Cc: Carson Glickman-Flora
Subject: Case No. 19-CA-32431
Ms. Todd:
Attached is Seattle Times reporter Dominic Gates' video of his interview with Jim Albaugh. You'll need to scroll down to
get to the video.
Jude Bryan | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 206.285.2828 | www.workerlaw.com
NLRB-FOIA-00009762
%XVLQHVV 7 HFKQRORJ \ _9 LGHR_$ QLQWHUYLHZ Z LWK%RHLQJ & ( 2 - LP $ OEDXJ KH[ WHQGHG 3 DJ HR I
z
z
/ RZ
J UDS K LF R UWH[ W
7 RGD\
VQHZ VLQGH[
7 KH6 HDWWOH7 LP HV& RP SDQ\

1: M
REV_1 : DXW
RV_1 : KRP HV_1 : VRXUFH_) UHH& ODVVLI LHGV_VHDWWOHWLP HVF R P
% XVLQHVV7 HFKQRORJ \
2 X UQHWZ R UN VLWHV
VHDWWOHWLP HVF R P _ $ GYDQFHG
z
z
+ RP H
/ RFDO
{ + RP H
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
( GX FDWLRQ
3 R OLWLF V
2 E LWX DULHV
6 S HF LDOUHS R UWV
& RUUHF WLRQV
7 UDI I LF
: HDWKHU
1 LFROH% URGHXU
- HUU\ / DUJ H
{ ' DQQ\
: HVW
QHDW
{ % HOOHY X H
{ , VVDT XDK
{ . LUNODQG
1 DWLRQ: RUOG
{ + RP H
{ 3 R OLWLF V
% XVLQHVV7 HFK
{ + RP H
{ %RHLQJ $ HURVSDFH
{ 0 LFURVRI W
{ 1 :
FRP SDQLHV
{ 3 HUVRQDOW
HFK QRORJ \
{ 5 H DOHVWDWH
{ 6 W
RFNP DUNHW
{
I LOH' & : 9 VFUDWFKWHP SHVDGEDWW& DFKH' LUGDWD6 WRUHBFDVHBB

NLRB-FOIA-00009763
% ULHU' XGOH\
5 HWDLO5 HS RUW
{ 6 RXQG
( FRQRP \
{ 6 XQGD\
%X] ]
6 S R UWV
{ + RP H
{ + LJ K
6 FKRRO
{ 0 DULQHUV
{ 6 HDKDZ NV
{ 6 RXQGHUV
) &
{ 6 WR UP
{ + XVNLHV
{ & RXJ DUV
{ 6 HDW
WOH8 QLY HUVLW\
{ & ROOHJ H
{ * RO
I
{ 2 O
\ P SLFV
{ 6 QRZ VS RUW
V
{ 2 W
K HUVS R UWV
{
{
{
) DQVKRS
6 WHY H. HOOH\

- HUU\ % UHZ HU
{ 6 LGHOLQH& K DW
WHU
( QWHUWDLQP HQW
{ + RP H
{ 5 HVW
DX UDQWV
{ 0 RYLHV
{ 0 XVLF
1 LJ KWOLI H
{ 7 K H$ UW
V
{ % RRNV
{ 7 9 OLVW
LQJ V
{ & DOOE R DUG
{
{
{
{
{
) LQGHY HQWV Y HQX HV

7 RGD\
VHY HQWV
6 X E P LWOLVWLQJ V
& RP LFV* DP HV
{ + RURVFRSHV
{ / RW
WHU\
/ LYLQJ
{ + RP H
{ ) RRG
: LQH
{ + RP H
* DUGHQ
{ 3 DFLI LF
1 : 0 DJ D] LQH
{ + HDOWK
{ :
LQH$ GYLVHU3 DXO* UHJ XWW
7 UDY HO
{

NLRB-FOIA-00009764
{
{
{
{
{
{
+ RP H
6 HDWWOHJ X LGH
: DVKLQJ WRQJ XLGH
2 UHJ RQJ XLGH
% ULWLVK& ROXP ELDJ XLGH
7 UDY HOWR R OV
{
{
9 DF DWLR QUHQWDOV
7 UDYHO: LVH& DURO3 XFFL

5 LFN6 WHYHV
( XURSH
{ 7 UDLO
0 L[ 5 RQ- XGG
2 SLQLRQ
{ + RP H
{ / HW
WHUVWR WK H( G LWR U
{ 7 KH
' HP RFUDF\ 3 DSHUV
{
{
{
( G& HWHUD% ORJ
z
z
z
6 KRSSLQJ
- RE V
{ 6 HDUF K MR E OLVW
LQJ V
{ 3 RVW
DUHVX P H
{ & DUHHU& HQW
HU
{ 3 R VWDMR E
$ X WRV
{ 6 HDUF K DX W
R OLVWLQJ V
{ 5 HVHDUFK & HQW
HU
{ 6 HOODY HK LF OH
+ RP HV
{ 6 HDUFK
I RUQHZ KRP HV
{ 6 HDUF K DOOS UR S HUW
LHV
{ 2 SHQ
KRXVHV
{ 6 HOODS UR S HUW
\
5 HQ WDOV
{ 6 HDUF K DOOUHQ WDOV
{ 3 R VWDUH Q WDOOLVWLQ J
& ODVVLI LHGV
{ 3 R VWDOLVWLQ J
z
z
% X\ DGV
{ 2 QOLQHDGV
{ 1 HZ VSDSHU
DGV
{ & ODVVLI LHGDGV
4 X LF NOLQNV7 UDI I LF _0 RYLHV _5 HVWDX UDQWV _7 RGD\

VHY HQWV _9 LGHR _3 K RWRV _% ORJ V _) RUXP V _
1 HZ VSDSHUGHOLYHU\
& R QWDF WX V
2 ULJ LQDOO\ SXEOLVKHG0 DUFK DW3 0 _3 DJ HP RGLI LHG0 DUFK DW 3 0

NLRB-FOIA-00009765
& RP P HQWV
(
P DLODUWLF OH
3 ULQ WY LHZ
6 K DUH
9 LGHR_$ QLQW
HUYLHZ Z LW
K%RHLQJ& ( 2 - LP
$ OE DX J KH[ WHQGHGYHUVLRQ
- LP $ OEDXJ KWKH& KLHI ( [ HFXWLYH2 I I LFHURI % RHLQJ & RP P HUFLDO$ LUSODQHVWDONVZ LWK6 HDWWOH7 LP HV
DHURVS DFHUHS RUWHU' RP LQLF* DWHVDE RX WWK H' UHDP OLQHU& K DUOHVWRQDQGFRP S DQ\
VI X WX UHLQWK H3 X J HW
6 RX QGDUHD
DHURVS DFHUHS RUWHU' RP LQLF* DWHVDE RX WWK H' UHDP OLQHU& K DUOHVWRQDQGWK HFRP S DQ\
VI X WX UHLQWK H
3 X J HW6 RX QGDUHD: DWFK WK HLQWHUY LHZ E HORZ RUF OLF N K HUH WR VHHH[ F HUS WV

NLRB-FOIA-00009766

NLRB-FOIA-00009767

NLRB-FOIA-00009768
(
P DLODUWLF OH
3 ULQ WY LHZ
6 K DUH
0 RUH%XVLQHVV 7 HFKQRORJ \
( $ ' 6 VD\ VLWVWDQNHUE LGZ LOOE HDW% RHLQJ RQS ULFH
$ P D] RQ1 & E LGWRWUDFNWD[ HVY LRODWHVI UHHVS HHFK
3 DFFDUDQQRXQFHVLP SURYHG4 HDUQLQJ V
8 3' $ 7(

3 0
$ SSOH4 LQFRP HXSSFWVKDUHVMXP SWRQHZ KLJ K
8 3' $ 7(

3 0
* ROGP DQUHS RUWVK X J HS URI LWVE X WWURX E OHVP RX QW
0 RUH% XVLQHVV 7 HFKQRORJ \ KHDGOLQHV
& RP P HQW
V
1 RFRP P HQWVK DY HE HHQS RVWHGWRWK LVDUWLF OH
5 HDGDOOFRP P HQWV6 K DUH\ RX UWK RX J K WV

NLRB-FOIA-00009769
* HWKRP HGHOLYHU\ WRGD\

9 LGHR
* OHH
I ODVKP RESHUI RUP DQFHV
% HOO\ GDQFLQJ I RUDFDX VH
/ LE HUW\ ) RX QGDWLRQ
V%

7 KH/ LEHUW\ ) RXQGDWLRQ
WR X UVWK HF R X QWU\ Z LWK D
UHVWR UHG% R HLQJ %

: : , , ERP EHU) OLJ KW
VDUH
DY DLODE OHWR WK HS X E OLF
+ HDU$ OH[ / XSOD\ SLDQR
2 SHQLQJ GD\ DW

( P HUDOG' RZ QV
3 OD\ VWDWLRQ0 RYHGHP R
% DUHI RRW7 HG
$ QLP HI DQVDWWHQG6 DNX UD

& RQ
% HDFRQ+ LOO, QWHUQDWLRQDO6 FK RROODQJ X DJ HLP P HUVLRQ
0 DUFK) RXUWKSHUI RUP VDW+ RQN) HVW: HVW

0 RUHYLGHRV
$ GYH UWLVLQJ
$ 3 9 LGHR
( QWHUWDLQP HQW_7 RS9 LGHR_: RUOG_2 I I EHDW9 LGHR_6 FL
7 HFK
0 DUNHWS ODF H
0 R VWUHDG

NLRB-FOIA-00009770
0 RVWFRP P HQWHG
0 R VWH
P DLOHG

) HORQDFFXVHGRI UXQQLQJ DQLP DO

VH[ I DUP LQ: KDW
FRP & RXQW
\
6 2 / ' WLQ\ WRZ QWR% RWK HOOFRX S OHI RU
+ LJ K F RX UWWRORRNDW& RVWFRVDOHRI 6 Z LVVZ DWFK HV
% HOOWRZ QK LJ K
ULVHZ R Q
WE HLP S ORGHG
: LOO5 RVVLUXQDJ DLQVW0 XUUD\ " 2 WKHU6 HQDWHKRSHI XOVZ DQWWRNQRZ
* DUEDJ HI RXQGLQVWRP DFKRI GHDGZ KDOHRQ: HVW6 HDWWOHEHDFK
: KDW
VP RUHDP D] LQJ W
KHQHZ L3 KRQHRU$ SSOHORVLQJ RQH" 8 3 ' $ 7 ( ' Z LWKEDFNVWRU\ _% ULH U
' XGOH\
V%ORJ
3 DQK DQGOLQJ E LOOS DVVHV
0 F* LQQY HWROLNHO\ WRK ROG_ 3 ROLWLF V1 RUWK Z HVW
6 HDK DZ NV
OHI W
WDF NOHT X HVWLRQVX UI DF HVI RUGUDI W
6 HDI DLUK \ GURS ODQHUDFHLQMHRS DUG\

* DP HWK UHDG0 DULQHUVY V2 ULROHV$ S ULO

& RX QFLOS RLVHGWRS DVVS DQK DQGOLQJ E LOO0 F* LQQVD\ VK H
OOY HWRQRP DWWHUZ K DW
0 RWK HUGHS RUWHGWR0 H[ LFR\ HDUVDJ RZ LQVFK DQFHWRUHWX UQ

7 K HWHD
SDUW\ P RYHP HQWP XFKDGRDERXWQRWYHU\ P XFK

5 HQWRQZ RP DQGLHVDI WHUE HLQJ VWUX FNE \ E LF\ FOLVW
6 HDWWOHS DQK DQGOLQJ E LOOS DVVHVODF N VY R WHVWR R Y HUULGHP D\ R UDOY HWR

) RJ HUVRQVD\ VKH
VKDSS\ Z KHUHKHLV

& OLI I / HHVXVSHQVLRQDQGI LQHDUHGURSSHGFRP SOHWHO\


* DUEDJ HLQVWRP DFKRI GHDGZ KDOH


VH[ I DUP LQ: KDW
FRP & RXQW
\
& KDWHDX6 WH0 LFKHOOHDQQRXQFHVVXP P HUFRQFHUWVFKHGXOH
, UDQLDQFOHULF3 URP LVFXRXVZ RP HQFDXVHT XDNHV
( GX FDWLQJ FUHDWLY HWK LQNHUVLVJ RRGI RUWK HHFRQRP \ _* XHVWFROXP QLVW
% HOOWRZ QK LJ K
ULVHZ R Q
WE HLP S ORGHG
5 HGP RQG+ LJ KHQYLURQP HQWDO
VFLHQFHWHDFKHUZ LQV* UHHQ3 UL] H
0 DX L
VK LJ K OLI H
( [ S HQVLY HWLF NHWNHHS VUHVWRUHG) O\ LQJ ) RUWUHVVLQWK HDLU

0 RVWYLHZ HGLP DJ HV
$
6 LWHP DS


NLRB-FOIA-00009771
%XVLQHVV 7 HFKQRORJ \ _9 LGHR_$ QLQWHUYLHZ Z LWK%RHLQJ & ( 2 - LP $ OEDXJ KH[ WHQGH 3 DJ H R I

VHDWWOHWLP HVF R P _$ GYDQFHG
z
z
z
z
z
$ ERXWWKHFRP SDQ\
( P SOR\ P HQWRSSRUWXQLWLHV
6 HDWWOH7 LP HVVWR UH
$ GY HUWLVHZ LWK X V
1 HZ VSDSHUVLQ( GXFDWLRQ
6 HUYLFHV
z
z
z
z
z
z
< RX UDFFRX QW/ RJ LQ

(
P DLOQHZ VOHWWHUV
& R QWDF WX V
) HHGEDFNDQGT XHVWLRQV
6 X E P LWOLVWLQJ V
6 HQGX VQHZ VWLS V
1 HZ V
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
+ RP H
/ RFDO
1 DWLRQ: RUOG
% XVLQHVV7 HFK
( QWHUWDLQP HQW
/ LYLQJ
7 UDY HO
6 S R UWV
2 SLQLRQ
( [ WUDV
7 RGD\
VQHZ VLQGH[
0 DUNHWS ODFH
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
- RE V
$ X WRV
+ RP HV
5 HQ WDOV
& ODVVLI LHGV
6 KRSSLQJ
1 : VRXUFH
3 HUVRQDOV
3 R VWDQ DG
* HWWLQJ < RXU1 HZ VSDSHU
z
z
z
+ RP HGHOLYHU\
7 HP SRUDU\ VWRSV
6 X E VFULE HUVHUY LFHV

NLRB-FOIA-00009772
2 WK HUHG LWLRQ V
z
z
z
z
z
z
1 HZ VE\ H
P DLO
0 RELOH
5 6 6 I HHGV
H
( GLWLR Q
/ RZ
J UDS K LF
7 Z LWWHU
0 DOZ DUHDWWDFNVDUHDJ URZ LQJ S URE OHP RQDOO: HE VLWHV5 HDGP RUHDE R X WZ K DWWR GR LI \ R X VHH
VRP HWKLQJ VXVSLFLRXV
3 ULY DF\ VWDWHP HQW_7 HUP VRI VHUYLFH

& RS\ ULJ KW 7 KH6 HDWWOH7 LP HV& RP SDQ\

NLRB-FOIA-00009773
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Baniszewski, Joseph
Sent:
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
FW: UNION CITY! 10/06/2010
Boeing 2008 strike
From: Metro Washington Council AFL-CIO [mailto:streetheat@dclabor.org]
Subject: UNION CITY! 10/06/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00009774
TODAY'S LABOR NEWS
Capitol Visitor Center
Workers Testify
In Congress
Local Unions Sponsor
Weekday Walks
For O'Malley
LABOR ON THE MOVE:
APALA'S Uno Moves to
DOL, Allan In As Interim
Deputy Director
Today's Labor History
ON THE LINE
MD/DC AFL-CIO Get-OutThe-Vote Activities
AFL-CIO Labor 2010 Phone Bank
Thursday, October 7 5:30p:
DC Labor FilmFest: Who Killed
Chea Vichea? (Special Preview)
NLRB-FOIA-00009775
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
THIS JUST
IN: On Thursday, October 7,
President
Barack Obama will be at Bowie State
University
to support Governor O'Malley and
Maryland's
Democratic agenda. Doors open at 1p
-- 14000
Jericho Park Road, Bowie, Maryland
20715 --
and tickets are not required. Wear
your union
colors and bring a photo ID!
CAPITOL
VISITOR
CENTER
WORKERS TESTIFY IN CONGRESS: Capitol
Visitor Center (CVC) guides really know their
way around Congress. The newly-unionized
CVC workers wasted no time exercising their
voice at work, testifying last week about
workplace safety issues at the Capitol. Megan
Burger, a CVC tour guide and member of
AFSCME
Local
658,
testified
that
since the
union formed, CVC management has been much
more responsive to employees' needs, which
include better inclement-weather uniforms and the
ability to bring water bottles outside. Burger
testified at a September 30 hearing of the House
Transpor
tation
and
Infrastru
cture Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management, chaired by DC Del. Eleanor
Holmes Norton. Norton berated the Architect of
the Capitol for workplace safety issues and
called for studies into ways to make the Capitol
complex safer for visitors and employees,
reported Daniel Newhauser last week in Roll
Call. The hearing was called to
examine the safety of the Capitol
complex after an Office of
Compliance report estimated that
there are about 6,300 hazards
around legislative branch
buildings. The hearing marked
the first time that a
representative from the newly
formed Capitol Visitor Center union, AFSCME
Local 658, testified before Congress. In
another improvement, CVC workers will be
given permanent pagers next month in an
effort to improve communication within the
NLRB-FOIA-00009776
Capitol in the event of an emergency such as a terrorist attack.
- photo: Megan Burger, AFSCME
Local 658 (CVC), testifies in Congress last week; next to her is Wally Reed, President of AFSCME Local 626
(Architect of the Capitol)
FILMFEST TIX ON SALE NOW!: Tickets for the 10th annual DC Labor FilmFest - set for
October 15-19 at the American Film Insitute -- have just gone on sale. Click here to
reserve yours now and guarantee a seat at the best show in town!
LOCAL UNIONS SPONSOR WEEKDAY
WALKS FOR O'MALLEY: With less than a
month to go before Election Day, labor is
ramping up its door-to-door efforts for
Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley (center) in
Prince George's County. Local unions are now
sponsoring weekday labor-to-labor walks,
including UFCW Local 400, which has been
turning out dozens of its members Thursday
and Friday evenings over the past few
weeks. "We're making sure that there's a
strong union vote on November 2," Tony Perez
(at left), Local 400's Government
Affairs Coordinator. "If all the
unions in Prince George's County
follow suit, Bob Ehrlich won't stand a chance," adds Metro Council Assistant
Political Coordinator Alya Solomon. CLICK HERE for the latest listing of
political activities in the area.
- photo by Adam Wright
LABOR ON THE MOVE: APALA'S Uno Moves to DOL, Allan In As Interim
Deputy Director: Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance (APALA) Executive
Director Malcolm Amado Uno joined the Department of Labor as a Special Assistant to the
Secretary with the Office of Public Engagement on Monday. "As a product of APALA and
the labor movement, I always considered it a privilege to work in this capacity to advance
worker, immigrant and civil rights," said Uno.
"In my new capacity, it is my hope to
increase access to the Department of Labor
for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders,
and all low-wage workers, to ensure that the
federal government is meeting their
obligation to improve working conditions for
all workers and assure that workers' rights
are respected and protected." Gregory Allan
Cendana, former President of the United
States Student Association, has taken
over as Interim Deputy Director at
APALA; reach him at 202-508-3733 or
gcendana@apalanet.org
TODAY'S LABOR HISTORY: First National Conference of Trade Union
Women (1918); 1,700 female flight attendants win 18-year, $37 million suit against
United Airlines. They had been fired for getting married (1986); Thirty-two thousand
machinists begin what is to be a successful 69-day strike against the Boeing Co. featuring
pay increase that averaged an estimated $19,200 in wages and benefits over four years
and safeguards against job cutbacks (1995); More info & ammo for unionists is available
online from Union Communication Services.
- photo: Boeing machinist Philip Bennett waves to a
passing vehicle as he pickets in front of a Boeing administrative building during a strike in 2008; photo courtesy
AP
NLRB-FOIA-00009777
Follow DC Labor on Twitter!
Material published in UNION CITY may be freely reproduced by any recipient; please
credit the Council as the source.
Published by the Metropolitan Washington Council, an AFL-CIO "Union City" Central Labor
Council whose 200 affiliated union locals represent 150,000 area union members. JOSLYN
N. WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT.
Story suggestions, event announcements, campaign reports, Letters to the Editor and
other material are welcome, subject to editing for clarity and space, and should be
directed to:
Editor: Chris Garlock
Assistant Editor: Adam Wright
streetheat@dclabor.org
Voice: 202-974-8153
Fax: 202-974-8152
Forward UNION CITY! to all your friends and colleagues or click here to spread the word!
If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for UNION CITY!.
This message was sent to joseph.baniszewski@nlrb.gov. Visit your Subscription
Management Page to modify your email communication preferences or update your
personal profile. To stop ALL email from UNION CITY!, click to Unsubscribe yourself from
our lists (or reply via email with "remove or unsubscribe" in the subject line).
Privacy Policy
NLRB-FOIA-00009778
Microsoft Outlook
Baniszewski, Joseph
Monday, March 14, 2011 7:53 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Kelly, David A.
Fw: Boeing Co.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Rich,
FYI, any idea when they expect to issue this?
E...
Joe
------Original Message------
To: Lafe Solomon
Cc: Celeste Mattina
Cc: Barry Kearney
Cc: Ellen Farrell
Cc: Jayme Sophir
Cc: Judy Katz
Cc: Miriam Szapiro
Cc: Omberg, Bob
Cc: Joseph Baniszewski
Subject: Boeing Co.
Sent: Mar 14, 2011 2:58 PM
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Deb Willen
--------------------------
NLRB-FOIA-00009779
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Bush, Lynn
Sent:
To:
Region 19, Seattle; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
Advice Memorandum - Case 19-CA-32431
Attachments:
ADV.19-CA-32431.Response2.Boeing.dlw.doc
Please see the attached closed Advice memorandum.
Lynn
NLRB-FOIA-00009780
NLRB-FOIA-00009781
NLRB-FOIA-00009782
Advice Memorandum
DATE:
April 11, 2011
S.A.M.
TO:
Region 19
FROM:
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
line.
activity.
the agreement.

NLRB-FOIA-00009783
Case 19-CA-32431
- 2 -


FACTS

this Agreement[.]
ten employees.

Section 21.7
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00009784
Case 19-CA-32431
- 3 -


In

For example,




strike.

is a big deal[.]

NLRB-FOIA-00009785
Case 19-CA-32431
- 4 -
strike zone[.]


Kiga
above.
summit in Chicago.

IAM representatives

This was the first
ended.
1 In his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
2
Union had struck.

in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
NLRB-FOIA-00009786
Case 19-CA-32431
- 5 -
future strikes.

Doug Kight.
labor relations.

At a subsequent
supplier issues.

IAM

Boeing agreed to

customers.

During August,
NLRB-FOIA-00009787
Case 19-CA-32431
- 6 -

Meanwhile, the
assembly line.



The Union said

At the end of the


On September

But truthfully, it
NLRB-FOIA-00009788
Case 19-CA-32431
- 7 -

So weve become an
reliable supplier.
do.
weeks.

Carolina.
on October 1.

The Union

In

The Union
control.

When a Union
would get more.

NLRB-FOIA-00009789
Case 19-CA-32431
- 8 -

The Union

Also,
Carolina.
negotiations.


Conner


committee.
generation product.

Indeed, the

get back to him.
NLRB-FOIA-00009790
Case 19-CA-32431
- 9 -

We would obviously


...
And so some of the
Sound.

Our customers
couple of weeks.

Michalski explained
of conduct.
not respond.

He wanted

Keating did not
their State.

On
seven years.
NLRB-FOIA-00009791
Case 19-CA-32431
- 10 -

In a press

The managers were

line.


The
our customers eyes.


customers.
NLRB-FOIA-00009792
Case 19-CA-32431
- 11 -
Jim Albaugh.

The

history.
haul.
with the union.

of wages.
Charleston.

... And


NLRB-FOIA-00009793
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -

It was that
three years.
schedule.

Approximately 1,740
approximately 60%.
ACTION


Then, when Boeing

It also
election.
years.
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00009794
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
the Union.



Nor could Boeing
months.
problems.

activity.
rights.

NLRB-FOIA-00009795
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -

The Court


supplier strategy.9
plant.
employment.10
activity.12
Ibid.
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
See id. at 520.
10
See id. at 520-21.
11
See id. at 521.
12
See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00009796
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
date.13

Thus, telling

unlawful threats.17
13
14
th
mem. 50 F.3d 1037 (11
1997).
15
Aelco Corp., 326 NLRB 1262, 1265 (1998).

See also Dorsey
th
part 233 F.3d 831 (4
16
311 NLRB at 1200.

17
unionized).
18
Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00009797
Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -

An employer may
to predicting

Some statements

Others were
testifies.21

And statements
(1)

During the call,
Sound.22
(2)

The
19
20
consequences).
21
22
23
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00009798
Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -
(3)
strikes.25
(4)
activity.26
II.

Instead of
24
to employees.
25

If
26
NLRB-FOIA-00009799
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -

Future work
desirable 787 jobs.

layoffs.
layoffs.
implemented.

In


its nonunion plant.

employees.30
27
28
Ibid.
29
th
Cir. 1990).
30
See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00009800
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
have performed.




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

See also
32
33
34
35
NLRB-FOIA-00009801
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
activity.36
strike.
strike.38

And the Board has
right to strike.
36
37
380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38
See id. at 283-85.
39
See id. at 284.
40
See ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00009802
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
substantial.42


Boeing has

The substantial

In addition, Boeing
Washington.

In
striking.

th
41
See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
42
Cir.
See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
43
NLRB-FOIA-00009803
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent.44
rights.45



the employees.46
employee rights.47
Paper.

Second, Boeings

position.
44
228, 231 (1963).

th
(4
Cir. 2000).
45
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
46
47

See also
NLRB-FOIA-00009804
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -


And the many
with the union.48


Section 8(a)(3).
48
49
NLRB-FOIA-00009805
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
subject.
A.

Alternatively, the

unit jobs.54
50
51
52
Ibid.
53
54
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00009806
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
bargaining unit.55
an expanded unit.56
jobs.57

Even

The work
unit employees.


In fact,
escalating.
55
56
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
57
134 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998).

NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
58
59
NLRB-FOIA-00009807
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009.
Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
B.

The Board will

In interpreting

This
60
61
See id. at 812, fn. 19.
62
64
See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00009808
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
contract.66
agreement.




65
Id. at 1260.
66
Id. at 1262.
67
68
th
Cir.
NLRB-FOIA-00009809
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -

also lacks merit.


Absent
modifications.71
69

70
71
NLRB-FOIA-00009810
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
rights.72


At present,

Thus, the
72
the Act).
73
1093 (1996).
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00009811
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.J.K.
ROFs - 9
74

The Region should

In the

This will
NLRB-FOIA-00009812
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Cleeland, Nancy
RE: new draft
How about the following
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Abruzzo, Jennifer
What do you think,
Exemption 5
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00009813
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Should we add also,

Exemption 5
________________________________
Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: new draft
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009814
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Schiff, Robert
FW : letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits
Hi I should have copied you
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Ferguson, John H.
Subject: RE: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits
Thank you.
To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Ferguson, John H.
Here is their letter to congress http://www.scattorneygeneral.org/newsroom/pdf/2011/4.28.11_Letter_to_Congress_2.pdf
Here is their letter to us
http://www.scattorneygeneral.org/newsroom/pdf/2011/4.28.11_NLRB_Letter_Formatted_with_Signatures.pdf
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
The 8 states have replied to the complaint through a letter? To whom? Do we have a copy?
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ferguson, John H.
Subject: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits
NLRB-FOIA-00009815
Please see below; Now there are 9 states going after us. Bloomberg asks if we have a response.
Columbia - South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and eight (8) other state attorneys general have
replied to a complaint filed against Boeing Corporation by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The
complaint charges Boeing with the commission of an unfair labor practice, but appears to do so without legal
and factual foundation. The board claims Boeing is prohibited from expanding production of its planes beyond
the reach of unions currently associated with its workers in Washington State. South Carolina is a staunch right
to work state. In reality, Boeing expanded its production of 787 Dreamliners to South Carolina last year in
response to increase in demand. What the NLRB complaint fails to mention is the increased demand for the
planes prompted the creation of over 2,000 new jobs in Washington State first, and continued demand
subsequently required an expansion facility in South Carolina. Recognizing the dangerous precedent this
aggressive action could set against the right to work, job creation, and economic growth in many states, the
attorneys general wrote:
"This complaint represents an assault upon the constitutional right of free speech, and the ability of our states
to create jobs and recruit industry. Your ill-conceived retaliatory action seeks to destroy our citizens' right to
work. It is South Carolina and Boeing today, but will be any of our states, with our right to work guarantees,
tomorrow."
"...this tenuous complaint will reverberate throughout union and non-union states alike, as international
companies will question the wisdom of locating in a country where the federal government interferes in industry
without cause or justification."
"Our states are struggling to emerge from one of the worst economic collapses since the Depression. Your
complaint further impairs an economic recovery. Intrusion by the federal bureaucracy on behalf of unions will
not create a single new job or put one unemployed person back to work."
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009816
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Liebman, W ilma B.
Cleeland, Nancy
RE: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about BOEING
Ex. 6
Forgot to mention,
said that
soon. Ex. 6 found Ex. 6 pretty limited.
Ex. 6
nterviewed Ex. 6 about a piece that is coming out
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ferguson, John H.
Subject: RE: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about BOEING
Sorry I meant to say about the Boeing complaint
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009817
tomorrow."
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009818
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemptio...
Cleeland, Nancy
Liebman, W ilma B.
RE: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about BOEING
doing something on Exemption 6 Ex. 6 may be right, but Im much happier to work with
Ex. 6 than
Ex. 6
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Liebman, Wilma B.
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Ex. 6
Forgot to mention,
said that
Ex.
6
soon.
found Ex. 6 pretty limited.
Ex. 6
interviewed
Ex. 6
about a piece that is coming out
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ferguson, John H.
Sorry I meant to say about the Boeing complaint
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009819
tomorrow."
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009820
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
Liebman, W ilma B.
RE: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00009821
tomorrow."
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009822
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
Liebman, W ilma B.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Yep he seemed to know who I was. Not the friendliest guy.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Great.
Exemption 5
To: Liebman, Wilma B.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009823
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
tomorrow."
NLRB-FOIA-00009824
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009825
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Liebman, W ilma B.
I just got another call. Apparently there are emails going around, thats whats prompting the calls, according to this one
guy. I actually had a good long talk with him and he ended up being fairly reasonable. People are just getting pumped full
of lies.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits
That's one way to describe him!
Sent: Thu Apr 28 16:58:06 2011
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Great.
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009826
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00009827
tomorrow."
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009828
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Liebman, W ilma B.
Cleeland, Nancy
Re: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits
So crazy. Denise was so funny. She said one caller used the F word!
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:12:08 2011
of lies.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Thu Apr 28 16:58:06 2011
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Great.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009829
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00009830
tomorrow."
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009831
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Liebman, W ilma B.
Ha! A very funny image.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
So crazy. Denise was so funny. She said one caller used the F word!
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:12:08 2011
of lies.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Thu Apr 28 16:58:06 2011
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB-FOIA-00009832
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Great.
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00009833
tomorrow."
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB-FOIA-00009834
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009835
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, April 29, 2011 10:48 AM
Cleeland, Nancy
RE: boeing operations in s.c.
Thx.
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 7:40 AM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
Cc: Wagner, Anthony R.
Subject: boeing operations in s.c.
Interesting piece in the clips today about Boeings 787 production getting back on track. The story mentions other
operations Boeing maintains in North Charleston, which really undercuts the argument that were telling Boeing they cant
do business there:
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/apr/28/good-boeing-news/
In North Charleston, two side-by-side Boeing factories produce major fuselage sections for the 787, which to date has
racked up 835 orders.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009836
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Mattina, Celeste J.; Schiff, Robert; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
Kearney, Barry J.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00009837
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00009838
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
Friday, March 25, 2011 2:00 PM
To:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc:
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject:
FW: Boeing
The beat goes on
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 1:53 PM
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
Subject: RE: Boeing
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
Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1 202.530.9559
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-00009839
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
To:
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Cc:
Subject:
FW: Boeing
When do you want to do it? Monday am is bad for me.
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
Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1 202.530.9559
Subject: RE: Boeing
Bill
Barry
Subject: RE: Boeing
NLRB-FOIA-00009840
William J. Kilberg
GIBSON DUNN
Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1 202.530.9559
Subject: Boeing
Bill
Barry
NLRB-FOIA-00009841
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent:
To:
Kearney, Barry J.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Cc:
Subject:
RE: Boeing
Any time except 1-3 on Tues.
Cc: Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW: Boeing
When do you want to do it? Monday am is bad for me.
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
Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1 202.530.9559
Subject: RE: Boeing
Bill
Barry
NLRB-FOIA-00009842
Subject: RE: Boeing
William J. Kilberg
GIBSON DUNN
Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1 202.530.9559
Subject: Boeing
Bill
Barry
NLRB-FOIA-00009843
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
Thursday, March 31, 2011 11:06 AM
To:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc:
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
FW:
From: David Campbell [mailto:campbell@workerlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 9:23 AM
Cc: Corson Christopher; Jude Bryan; Carson Glickman-Flora; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject:
Barry, Thanks for calling me back yesterday. We are waiting for Boeings call. As I mentioned in our call,
while Boeing is talking good faith they are capitalizing on chilling union activity by expanding their
operations to create duplicate parts manufacturing in South Carolina (even though there is unused capacity in
the bargaining unit). Just last week Ray Connor was quoted in the following
Article: http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/mar/26/parts-plant-marks-boeings-ascent/
Boeing already employs more than 1,300 workers at a similar plant at its Everett, Wash., aircraft assembly
headquarters, but company executives said early last year that they wanted to duplicate their critical jet
manufacturing operations in Charleston in case of W est Coast labor strikes or other work stoppages. A walkout by
the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace W orkers in 2008 cost the company an estimated $1.8
billion.
A similar local union at the North Charleston site voted to disband in September 2009, setting the stage for
Boeing to announce six weeks later it would build its new aircraft assembly plant in the Lowcountry.
"All roads to the 787 lead through South Carolina," Ray Conner, vice president and general manager of supply
chain management and operations for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said. "We expect to do big things here in
South Carolina."
We believe that Boeing continues to merely play for time, while it capitalizes on its unlawful conduct. We are
willing to meet if Boeing genuinely wants to resolve this matter. But we believe instead Boeing will wait to call
us late in the week, and then find some reason for further delay. Boeing has been less than honest in its claims
in this case, including three claimed facts (that we know about) which were plainly not the case. For at least
five months they have led your office to believe they have some interest in resolving this matter while
continuously reinforcing their undisputed and unambiguous chilling message to their workers and the
nation. Boeing is forcing the issue which we ask be resolved without delay: Can Boeing relocate jobs to a
newly decertified site because its union employees strike? If so, why cant any employer discriminate in favor
of non-union employees? Such a result would leave 8(a)(3) a dead letter, and effectively overrule by inaction
the Boards runaway shop cases as well as its recent decision in
Paraxel, 356 NLRB No. 82 (2011).
Boeing is winning this
point of law by delay and default. We hope to hear from Boeing and if possible promptly reach a settlement.
Absent this, we respectfully request that the General Counsel issue a complaint. Failure to do so will harm tens
of thousands of Boeings employees and create a union-busting roadmap that will be emulated across the
US. Surely, that is not to be the legacy of this General Counsel and Board.
NLRB-FOIA-00009844
Thanks, Dave
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
NLRB-FOIA-00009845
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
To:
Subject:
fyi
Barry,
all along.
NLRB-FOIA-00009846
more time.
Sent from my iPad
Christopher Corson
General Counsel
301-967-4510 (office)
301-967-4594 (fax)
202-368-6484 (cell)
_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00009847
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
To:
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
fyi
-----Original Message----From: Kearney, Barry J.
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:38 AM
To: 'Corson Christopher'
Subject: RE: Call from Boeing
Chris
Boing's response is very disappointing and you are undoubtedly correct that they are looking for delay. However I
believe we can't assume that and the loop needs to be closed. I would ask that you get back to Gerry and tell him a
previously scheduled meeting 6 weeks from now is unacceptable and if Boeing is serious they will meet this week with a
proposal. Boeing response is predictable but I think they need to say it. Thanks for your patience Barry
Barry,
all along.
NLRB-FOIA-00009848
more time.
Sent from my iPad
Christopher Corson
General Counsel
301-967-4510 (office)
301-967-4594 (fax)
202-368-6484 (cell)
_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00009849
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
To:
Subject:
fyi
Cc: David Campbell; Carson Glickman-Flora; Canter Robin
Barry,
Gerry was traveling this morning, so I was just able to talk with him a few minutes ago. Message delivered. Let's see
what they say.
Chris
Christopher Corson
General Counsel
International Association of Machinists &
Aerospace Workers
301-967-4510 (office)
301-967-4594 (fax)
202-368-6484 (cell)
ccorson@iamaw.org
-----Original Message----From: Kearney, Barry J. [mailto:barry.kearney@nlrb.gov]
To: Corson Christopher
Chris
NLRB-FOIA-00009850
Barry,
all along.
more time.
Sent from my iPad
Christopher Corson
General Counsel
301-967-4510 (office)
301-967-4594 (fax)
NLRB-FOIA-00009851
202-368-6484 (cell)
_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00009852
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
W ednesday, April 13, 2011 12:20 PM
Sophir, Jayme; Farrell, Ellen
RE: draft press release in Boeing
Exemption 5
From: Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:17 PM
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-00009853
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kearney, Barry J.
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : draft press release in Boeing
Boeingpressrelease.jls.doc
Exemption 5
From: Sophir, Jayme
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00009854
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009855
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009856
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen;
Sophir, Jayme
draft press release in Boeing
Looks good; my few suggestions are in italics.
Rich
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:55 AM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW: draft press release in Boeing
Exemption 5
From: Sophir, Jayme
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00009857
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009858
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009859
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sunday, April 17, 2011 3:47 PM
FW : Complaint
Boeing complaint post RA revised draft 4-16-11.doc; ATT00001..htm
Lets discuss tomorrow before meeting with GC at 11
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 2:19 PM
Subject: Complaint
Barry, I have attached a ROUGH draft for the Boeing complaint. Id greatly appreciate any suggestions,
corrections, improvements, etc.
A few observations, questions:
Exemption 5
Many thanks; look forward to your insights.
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00009860
NLRB-FOIA-00009861
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009862
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009863
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009864
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009865
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009866
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009867
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009868
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009869
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009870
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009871
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009872
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009873
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009874
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009875
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009876
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009877
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009878
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00009879
Microsoft Outlook
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Celeste J.
Re: new draft
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Mon Apr 18 15:44:07 2011
Subject: new draft
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009880
Microsoft Outlook
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Celeste J.
Re: new draft
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
--------------------------
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Mattina, Celeste J.
Sent: Mon Apr 18 16:16:20 2011
Subject: Re: new draft
Exemption 5

--------------------------
Exemption 5
Sent: Mon Apr 18 15:44:07 2011
Subject: new draft
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009881
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
time to decide
Importance:
High
Still no word from Lafe, the story goes to bed in 4 minutes. I need a judgment call. Should we
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009882
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Re: time to decide
I would go with
Exemption 5
--------------------------
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:59:18 2011
Subject: time to decide
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009883
Microsoft Outlook
Farrell, Ellen
Kearney, Barry J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: time to decide
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
is fine with me too.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Re: time to decide
I would go with
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:59:18 2011
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009884
NLRB-FOIA-00009885
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Re: time to decide
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I'm OK
Exemption 5
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Thu Apr 28 18:07:13 2011
Subject: RE: time to decide
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
I would go with
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:59:18 2011
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009886
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009887
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
W illen, Debra L; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
RE: draft response to state AGs
What a welcome voice of sanity in this cacophony!
I have questions on two points. First,
Exemption 5
Second,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Subject: draft response to state AGs
Draft attached comments/edits welcome.
NLRB-FOIA-00009888
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Farrell, Ellen
Psotka, Jonathan
Deco-Akal - Boeing press release
Ellen
I havent been able to find the press release where
Exemption 5
I was thinking that it might be in his answer to the letter from the right-to-work state attorney generals, but I dont have that
-- did he ever answer that letter?
Any ideas?
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00009889
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Farrell, Ellen
Mattina, Celeste J.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00009890
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Notwithstanding that this case is about retaliation for striking in other states, they seem t
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00009891
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00009892
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009893
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009894
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009895
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Solomon:
tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00009896
April 27, 2011
Page 2
back to work.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
NLRB-FOIA-00009897
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00009898
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ferguson, John H.
Kearney, Barry J.
Link to SC Boeing articles
Your team is probably well beyond needing this, being more cognizant than I am of web resources, but just in case
Andrew Martins FYI legal news of today had an article from a South Carolina papers website, which has a whole section
devoted to news articles about Boeings move to South Carolina. The link is
http://www.postandcourier.com/stories/2009/oct/29/boeing-co-lands-lowcountry/
One of the articles says Boeing has lost more orders than it has booked because of customer cancellations. Another said
its profits dropped 21% and that layoffs are likely.
NLRB-FOIA-00009899
Microsoft Outlook
Finch, Peter G.
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: seattletimes.com: Boeing will build next 787's first horizontal tails in Seattle
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I saw this last night.

IAM.
It's a very interesting development, and I wonder how it plays with
Speaking of which, I think that whatever the Union wants to convey/have conveyed to
Boeing
Exemption 5
Just my $.02.
Peter G. Finch, Field Attorney
National Labor Relations Board - Region 19
915 Second Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98174
Tel.: 206.220.6285
Fax: 206.220.6305
e-mail: peter.finch@nlrb.gov
To: Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise; Finch, Peter G.; Harvey, Rachel
Subject: Fw: seattletimes.com: Boeing will build next 787's first horizontal tails in Seattle
--------------------------
From:
Ex. 6 personal privacy
Sent: Wed May 25 07:42:42 2011
Subject: seattletimes.com: Boeing will build next 787's first horizontal tails in Seattle
This message was sent to you by
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing will build next 787's first horizontal tails in Seattle
Boeing Commercial Airplanes chief Jim Albaugh confirmed for the first time Tuesday that the
company intends to do initial production work...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2015138417_boeing25.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
NLRB-FOIA-00009900
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.
======================================================================
NLRB-FOIA-00009901
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Flanagan, Kevin P.
Thursday, May 27, 2010 9:43 AM
Moskowitz, Eric G.; Platt, Nancy
RE: Boeing Company, Case 19-CA-32431
Heres my take:
Exemption 5
(1) I
Exemption 5
(2) A separate issue
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009902
Exemption 5
From: Moskowitz, Eric G.
Cc: Kearney, Barry J.; Platt, Nancy; Flanagan, Kevin P.
Subject: RE: Boeing Company, Case 19-CA-32431
Off the cuff, I do not think this raises
Exemption 5
Nancy Platt and Kevin Flanagan are looking into this.
Eric
To: Moskowitz, Eric G.
Eric,
We (in the metaphorical sense)did not attempt to determine that; in fact it was Andrew Martin of our library who
made the request. However we thought it would be
Exemption 5
t.
Rich
Subject: FW: Boeing Company, Case 19-CA-32431
Rich:
Question: Has anyone in the Region determined from the Seattle Times what they mean
Exemption 5
Eric
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00009903
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Flanagan, Kevin P.
Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Extended Interview with Boeing CEO Jim Albaugh
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Kevin
Hello Kevin,
Regards,
Evelyn Edens
The Seattle Times
206-464-2299
To: Evelyn Edens
NLRB-FOIA-00009904
Thanks,
Kevin
__
Kevin Flanagan
Phone: (202) 273-2938 Fax: (202) 273-1799
NLRB-FOIA-00009905
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, June 03, 2010 12:57 PM
Flanagan, Kevin P.
Kevin, For purpose of the investigation we only need one copy; if we go to trial, wed need 8 copies.
Many thanks.
Rich
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Kevin
Hello Kevin,
Regards,
Evelyn Edens
The Seattle Times
206-464-2299
NLRB-FOIA-00009906
To: Evelyn Edens
Thanks,
Kevin
__
Kevin Flanagan
Phone: (202) 273-2938 Fax: (202) 273-1799
NLRB-FOIA-00009907
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Garza, Jose
FW : new draft
Boeingrelease.doc
Subject: new draft
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009908
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009909
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Solomon, Lafe E.
Re: new draft
Thnx!
To: Garza, Jose
Sent: Mon Apr 18 16:04:34 2011
Subject: FW: new draft
Subject: new draft
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009910
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
W agner, Anthony R.; Garza, Jose
FW : part of fact sheet
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Fyi - this might be of interest.
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell,
Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Subject: part of fact sheet
Hi everyone,
I'm working on the fact sheet and am struggling to condense the case law mentioned in the
Advice memo
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009911
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009912
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Cleeland, Nancy
Sent:
Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:24 AM
To:
Solomon, Lafe E.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Colwell, John
Subject:
ezra klein
F.; Schiff, Robert; Garza, Jose; Wagner, Anthony R.
I love that Ezra Klein, a young up-and-coming opinionator on the Washington Post, highlighted the Pearlstein column this
morning, especially the part that he cited.
Domestic Policy
The administrations crackdown on Boeing is well-justified, writes Steven Pearlstein: The answer, I would suggest,
is to be found not in the case law but in the clear and unambiguous words of the National Labor Relations Act and the
history behind it. In a 1993 law review article, New York University law professor Cynthia Estlund wrote that in passing the
act, Congress sought to restrain corporate power and tilt the economic playing field in favor of workers. The idea was to
outlaw union-avoidance strategies that, while economically rational for any one firm, would be economically harmful for
the nation as a whole if widely adopted. Today, we may find all that quaintly -- or menacingly -- socialistic, but it is still the
law of the land, one that Lafe Solomon and his NLRB colleagues have a duty to enforce.
Immediately followed by this:
Interspecies argument interlude: A dog and a duckling have it out.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009913
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:24 AM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Colwell, John F.; Schiff, Robert; Garza,
Jose; Wagner, Anthony R.
Subject: ezra klein
I love that Ezra Klein, a young up-and-coming opinionator on the Washington Post, highlighted the Pearlstein column this
morning, especially the part that he cited.
Domestic Policy
The administrations crackdown on Boeing is well-justified, writes Steven Pearlstein: The answer, I would suggest,
is to be found not in the case law but in the clear and unambiguous words of the National Labor Relations Act and the
history behind it. In a 1993 law review article, New York University law professor Cynthia Estlund wrote that in passing the
act, Congress sought to restrain corporate power and tilt the economic playing field in favor of workers. The idea was to
outlaw union-avoidance strategies that, while economically rational for any one firm, would be economically harmful for
the nation as a whole if widely adopted. Today, we may find all that quaintly -- or menacingly -- socialistic, but it is still the
law of the land, one that Lafe Solomon and his NLRB colleagues have a duty to enforce.
Immediately followed by this:
Interspecies argument interlude: A dog and a duckling have it out.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009914
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; W agner, Anthony R.
any thoughts on a response?
Hi Lafe, I fear you are in the air again. If not, please let me know if you have 5 minutes to talk. Weve been asked for
comment on this letter from 9 states asking us to withdraw the complaint.
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009915
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; W agner, Anthony R.
RE: any thoughts on a response?
Exemption 5
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Wagner, Anthony R.
Subject: any thoughts on a response?
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009916
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Garza, Jose
When you run for office I want to work on your campaign!
This was Barry Kearneys response:
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Wagner, Anthony R.
Subject: RE: any thoughts on a response?
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009917
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy
Ha!
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB-FOIA-00009918
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009919
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Garza, Jose
You know my answer to that!
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Ha!
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009920
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009921
Microsoft Outlook
Cleeland, Nancy
Garza, Jose
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good news I checked with Ernestine and lafe is in a session with the afl right now but should be out in a half hour.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Ha!
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009922
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009923
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Great!
To: Garza, Jose
Good news I checked with Ernestine and lafe is in a session with the afl right now but should be out in a half hour.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Ha!
Exemption 5
To: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: Garza, Jose
NLRB-FOIA-00009924
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009925
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; W agner, Anthony R.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009926
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; W agner, Anthony R.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Great I just learned from Ernestine that Lafe is in a session until about 5 our time. Ill write up a draft statement and run it
by all of you before sending it for his approval. Hopefully we can get something to the reporter before her deadline.
Thanks!
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Wagner, Anthony R.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009927
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009928
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; W agner, Anthony R.
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009929
NLRB-FOIA-00009930
Microsoft Outlook
Garza, Jose
Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Re: time to decide
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I'm OK
Exemption 5
Sent: Thu Apr 28 18:07:13 2011
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
I would go with
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:59:18 2011
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009931
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009932
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Ahearn, Richard L.
fyi, here are stories currently in the works about boeing
FYI, these publications are working on stories NLRB regarding Boeing letter today. Some are seeking phone interviews.
Financial Times deadline 4 pm today story running Friday on Boeing, including letter. Seeking short interview with
Lafe today, and Im answering some other questions.
Bloomberg Stephanie Armour I'm working on this broader picture story about implications of
the case, why such a backlash against it, what is at stake here both for unions and
businesses. Seeking interview with Lafe.
Washington Examiner editorial and story for tomorrow on Boeing letter theyre ok with the statement.
Seattle Post Intelligencer story for tomorrow on Boeing letter, havent sent statement yet waiting for possible revision
Post and Courier in Charleston SC seeking reaction to Boeing letter, havent sent statement yet
AP daily about letter, he has the statement but we can revise
BNA daily about letter, I sent the statement
CQ Weekly story for this weekend, deadline tomorrow, broad look at policy oscillation at the NLRB. W ould like a brief
phone interview with Wilma Thursday morning.
Question:
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009933
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: fyi, here are stories currently in the works about boeing
further tomorrow and Friday I am all day each day at the
Exemption 5
Pacific Coast Labor & Employment Law Conference, where I am speaking tomorrow pm and need to be generally present
as I am the organizations treasurer this year and Chair for next year. Also my blackberry is dead and being replaced; Al
Turner informed me I should expect new one in tomorrows mail, but until it arrives Ill have limited access.
To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: fyi, here are stories currently in the works about boeing
Question:
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009934
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Ahearn, Richard L.; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: fyi, here are stories currently in the works about boeing
That all makes sense.
Exemption 5
Thanks, Nancy
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: RE: fyi, here are stories currently in the works about boeing
Exemption 5
further tomorrow and Friday I am all day each day at the
Pacific Coast Labor & Employment Law Conference, where I am speaking tomorrow pm and need to be generally present
as I am the organizations treasurer this year and Chair for next year. Also my blackberry is dead and being replaced; Al
Turner informed me I should expect new one in tomorrows mail, but until it arrives Ill have limited access.
To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: fyi, here are stories currently in the works about boeing
NLRB-FOIA-00009935
Question:
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00009936
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy; Mattina, Celeste J.; Schiff, Robert; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
Kearney, Barry J.
To the extent it is possible, I think it would be best to have this conversation in person.
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Schiff, Robert; Garza, Jose; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Solomon, Lafe E.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00009937
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00009938
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00009939
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Mattina, Celeste J.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
That is my recollection as well.
To: Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
We have no record of having sent this response out and I seem to recall
Exemption 5
I am just sending this message out
in case somebody has a different recollection, although I am pretty sure this is what
happened.
To: MotonBostick, Sylvia; Contee, Ernestine R.
I am pretty sure we decided not to send this response, but can you please check and
get back to me on this? Thank you!
To: Mattina, Celeste J.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
NLRB-FOIA-00009940
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00009941
See my modification
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00009942
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Todd, Dianne
Sent:
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Subject:
Video - Boeing
Attachments:
To: Todd, Dianne
Ms. Todd:
get to the video.
NLRB-FOIA-00009943
z
z
/ RZ
J UDS K LF R UWH[ W
7 RGD\
VQHZ VLQGH[

1: M
REV_1 : DXW
z
z
+ RP H
/ RFDO
{ + RP H
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
( GX FDWLRQ
3 R OLWLF V
2 E LWX DULHV
6 S HF LDOUHS R UWV
& RUUHF WLRQV
7 UDI I LF
: HDWKHU
1 LFROH% URGHXU
- HUU\ / DUJ H
{ ' DQQ\
: HVW
QHDW
{ % HOOHY X H
{ , VVDT XDK
{ . LUNODQG
1 DWLRQ: RUOG
{ + RP H
{ 3 R OLWLF V
% XVLQHVV7 HFK
{ + RP H
{ %RHLQJ $ HURVSDFH
{ 0 LFURVRI W
{ 1 :
FRP SDQLHV
{ 3 HUVRQDOW
HFK QRORJ \
{ 5 H DOHVWDWH
{ 6 W
RFNP DUNHW
{

NLRB-FOIA-00009944
% ULHU' XGOH\
5 HWDLO5 HS RUW
{ 6 RXQG
( FRQRP \
{ 6 XQGD\
%X] ]
6 S R UWV
{ + RP H
{ + LJ K
6 FKRRO
{ 0 DULQHUV
{ 6 HDKDZ NV
{ 6 RXQGHUV
) &
{ 6 WR UP
{ + XVNLHV
{ & RXJ DUV
{ 6 HDW
WOH8 QLY HUVLW\
{ & ROOHJ H
{ * RO
I
{ 2 O
\ P SLFV
{ 6 QRZ VS RUW
V
{ 2 W
K HUVS R UWV
{
{
{
) DQVKRS
6 WHY H. HOOH\

- HUU\ % UHZ HU
{ 6 LGHOLQH& K DW
WHU
( QWHUWDLQP HQW
{ + RP H
{ 5 HVW
DX UDQWV
{ 0 RYLHV
{ 0 XVLF
1 LJ KWOLI H
{ 7 K H$ UW
V
{ % RRNV
{ 7 9 OLVW
LQJ V
{ & DOOE R DUG
{
{
{
{
{

7 RGD\
VHY HQWV
6 X E P LWOLVWLQJ V
& RP LFV* DP HV
{ + RURVFRSHV
{ / RW
WHU\
/ LYLQJ
{ + RP H
{ ) RRG
: LQH
{ + RP H
* DUGHQ
{ 3 DFLI LF
1 : 0 DJ D] LQH
{ + HDOWK
{ :
7 UDY HO
{

NLRB-FOIA-00009945
{
{
{
{
{
{
+ RP H
6 HDWWOHJ X LGH
: DVKLQJ WRQJ XLGH
2 UHJ RQJ XLGH
7 UDY HOWR R OV
{
{
9 DF DWLR QUHQWDOV

5 LFN6 WHYHV
( XURSH
{ 7 UDLO
0 L[ 5 RQ- XGG
2 SLQLRQ
{ + RP H
{ / HW
{ 7 KH
' HP RFUDF\ 3 DSHUV
{
{
{
( G& HWHUD% ORJ
z
z
z
6 KRSSLQJ
- RE V
LQJ V
{ 3 RVW
DUHVX P H
{ & DUHHU& HQW
HU
{ 3 R VWDMR E
$ X WRV
{ 6 HDUF K DX W
R OLVWLQJ V
{ 5 HVHDUFK & HQW
HU
{ 6 HOODY HK LF OH
+ RP HV
{ 6 HDUFK
I RUQHZ KRP HV
LHV
{ 2 SHQ
KRXVHV
{ 6 HOODS UR S HUW
\
5 HQ WDOV
& ODVVLI LHGV
{ 3 R VWDOLVWLQ J
z
z
% X\ DGV
{ 2 QOLQHDGV
{ 1 HZ VSDSHU
DGV
{ & ODVVLI LHGDGV

1 HZ VSDSHUGHOLYHU\
& R QWDF WX V

NLRB-FOIA-00009946
& RP P HQWV
(
P DLODUWLF OH
3 ULQ WY LHZ
6 K DUH
9 LGHR_$ QLQW
HUYLHZ Z LW
K%RHLQJ& ( 2 - LP
6 RX QGDUHD
VI X WX UHLQWK H

NLRB-FOIA-00009947

NLRB-FOIA-00009948

NLRB-FOIA-00009949
(
P DLODUWLF OH
3 ULQ WY LHZ
6 K DUH
8 3' $ 7(

3 0
8 3' $ 7(

3 0
& RP P HQW
V

NLRB-FOIA-00009950

9 LGHR
* OHH
V%

UHVWR UHG% R HLQJ %

VDUH
2 SHQLQJ GD\ DW

( P HUDOG' RZ QV
% DUHI RRW7 HG

& RQ

0 RUHYLGHRV
$ GYH UWLVLQJ
$ 3 9 LGHR
7 HFK
0 DUNHWS ODF H
0 R VWUHDG

NLRB-FOIA-00009951
0 RVWFRP P HQWHG
0 R VWH
P DLOHG


VH[ I DUP LQ: KDW
FRP & RXQW
\
% HOOWRZ QK LJ K
ULVHZ R Q
WE HLP S ORGHG
: KDW
VP RUHDP D] LQJ W
' XGOH\
V%ORJ
6 HDK DZ NV
OHI W



7 K HWHD


) RJ HUVRQVD\ VKH
VKDSS\ Z KHUHKHLV





VH[ I DUP LQ: KDW
FRP & RXQW
\
% HOOWRZ QK LJ K
ULVHZ R Q
WE HLP S ORGHG
0 DX L
VK LJ K OLI H

$
6 LWHP DS


NLRB-FOIA-00009952

z
z
z
z
z
$ ERXWWKHFRP SDQ\
6 HUYLFHV
z
z
z
z
z
z

(
P DLOQHZ VOHWWHUV
& R QWDF WX V
6 X E P LWOLVWLQJ V
6 HQGX VQHZ VWLS V
1 HZ V
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
+ RP H
/ RFDO
1 DWLRQ: RUOG
% XVLQHVV7 HFK
( QWHUWDLQP HQW
/ LYLQJ
7 UDY HO
6 S R UWV
2 SLQLRQ
( [ WUDV
7 RGD\
VQHZ VLQGH[
0 DUNHWS ODFH
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
- RE V
$ X WRV
+ RP HV
5 HQ WDOV
& ODVVLI LHGV
6 KRSSLQJ
1 : VRXUFH
3 HUVRQDOV
3 R VWDQ DG
z
z
z
+ RP HGHOLYHU\
7 HP SRUDU\ VWRSV

NLRB-FOIA-00009953
2 WK HUHG LWLRQ V
z
z
z
z
z
z
1 HZ VE\ H
P DLO
0 RELOH
5 6 6 I HHGV
H
( GLWLR Q
/ RZ
J UDS K LF
7 Z LWWHU


NLRB-FOIA-00009954
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Monday, May 24, 2010 3:21 PM
Subpoena request for Boeing video
Rich, the manual states that the request should go to the Division of Advice and the Special Litigation
Branch. Thanks, Dianne
This Region is currently investigating charge 19-CA-32431 filed by the IAM&AW against The Boeing
Company. As part of the investigation, the assigned Board Agent is seeking a video tape from the
Seattle Times newspaper. As CHM 11770.4 requires clearance from Headquarters prior to the
issuance of an investigative subpoena where the subpoena seeks evidence from a member of the
press to elicit testimony relating to information gained in his or her professional capacity or requiring
the production of materials secured as a result of news gathering activities, I am submitting this
request.
The Employer, a manufacturer of airplanes, announced in October 2009 that it would be placing a
second assembly line for the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina at its non-union facility instead of at its
union-represented facility in Everett, Washington where the first assembly line is located. The charge
alleges, among other items, that the Employer placed the second line in South Carolina in retaliation
for the unit employees engaging in strikes in 2008 and prior years.
In March 2010, a local reporter for the Seattle Times newspaper video-taped his interview with Jim
Albaugh, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. In that three-part interview, Mr. Albaugh states
Boeings reasons for placing the second line in South Carolina labor strife and increased wages.
Thus, the Region seeks possession of the video as it contains direct statements from a Boeing
official regarding Boeings reasons for placing the second line in S. Carolina.
We requested the video from the Seattle Times, but the following restrictions were placed on the use
of the video.
Video is provided to you as is for your personal use only and may not be copied, reproduced, distributed. broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed or otherwise
exploited for any other purpose whatsoever.
As such, we wish to subpoena the video tape in order to not be limited by the newspapers use
restrictions.
NLRB-FOIA-00009955
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kobe, James
Video Tape.pdf
To: Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne; Perkins, Victoria
See attached.
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00009956
M em orandum
TO :
DATE:
M a y 25, 2 010
FR O M :
S U B JE C T :
B oeing C om pany
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
NLRB-FOIA-00009957
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
M ay 25 ,2 0 1 0
-2-
P lease advise.
R . L. A .
cc:
NLRB-FOIA-00009958
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kobe, James
fyi
Many thanks; look forward to your response.
rich
Exemption 5
Eric
Eric,
Exemption 5
Rich
Rich:
Exemption 5
Eric
NLRB-FOIA-00009959
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00009960
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
RE: Boeing
Seems premature to me.
From: Todd, Dianne
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 7:56 PM
Subject: Boeing
Rich,
I spoke to Dave Campbell today and he would like to meet with you to go over the case as it stands
and see if there are any questions or issues they can address more fully.
Thanks,
Dianne Todd
Board Agent
NLRB, Region 19
Ph: 206-220-6319
Fax: 206-220-6305
NLRB-FOIA-00009961
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Jablonski, Colleen G.; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Boeing
That is what I told him but I said I would check with Rich.
From: Jablonski, Colleen G.
To: Todd, Dianne; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: RE: Boeing
Seems premature to me.
From: Todd, Dianne
Subject: Boeing
Rich,
I spoke to Dave Campbell today and he would like to meet with you to go over the case as it stands
and see if there are any questions or issues they can address more fully.
Thanks,
Dianne Todd
Board Agent
NLRB, Region 19
Ph: 206-220-6319
Fax: 206-220-6305
NLRB-FOIA-00009962
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Todd, Dianne
Boeing
Your view?
NLRB-FOIA-00009963
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Re: Boeing
GREAT!
--------------------------
Cc: Todd, Dianne
Sent: Wed Jun 16 18:44:53 2010
Subject: Boeing
Your view?
NLRB-FOIA-00009964
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
FW : Boeing
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 8:15 PM
To: Jablonski, Colleen G.
Subject: Re: Boeing
GREAT!
--------------------------
Cc: Todd, Dianne
Sent: Wed Jun 16 18:44:53 2010
Subject: Boeing
Your view?
NLRB-FOIA-00009965
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Pomerantz, Anne
W ednesday, September 01, 2010 5:05 PM
Advice; Karsh, Aaron
Albertsen, Mary
RE: Boeing Company, 19-CA-32431, Submission
ADV.19-CA-32431.Boeing Memo to Advice and Special Lit re decision and 10j.doc
Aaron,
Mary forwarded your e-mail to me for response. The files in this case are quite voluminous, as you may have already
gathered from the submission. We anticipate having all the materials to you next week. Meanwhile, I have attached a
copy of the submission in Word, which Mary informed me you had asked for, and below is the link to the electronic case
file on Region 19s H drive: R19COM\R19COM\REGION 19 C CASES\19-CA-32431 Boeing.
Please feel free to contact me should you require anything else.
Anne
From: Albertsen, Mary
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 1:55 PM
To: Pomerantz, Anne
Subject: FW: Boeing Company, 19-CA-32431, Submission
Mary Albertsen, AOM
Region 19 - Seattle, W A
(206) 220-6318
From: Advice
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 8:42 AM
To: Albertsen, Mary
Thanks for the submission. Please let us know on what date and in what form you will be sending us the Regional Office
Files. And, to help us with the assignment process, could you also let me know how voluminous the ROFs are and how
many there are?
Thanks -
Aaron Karsh
DAGC, Advice
To: Advice; Injunction Litigation Branch; Kearney, Barry J.; Katz, Judy
Cc: Baniszewski, Joseph; Ahearn, Richard L.; Pomerantz, Anne
Subject: Boeing Company, 19-CA-32431, Submission
Attached please find a Request for Advice and Authorization to Seek Section 10(j) Injunctive Relief in the above case.
NLRB-FOIA-00009966
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
NLRB-FOIA-00009967
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009968
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009969
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009970
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009971
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009972
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009973
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009974
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009975
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009976
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009977
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009978
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009979
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009980
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009981
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009982
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009983
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009984
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009985
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009986
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009987
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009988
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009989
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009990
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009991
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009992
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009993
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009994
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009995
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009996
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009997
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009998
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00009999
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010000
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010001
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010002
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010003
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010004
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010005
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010006
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010007
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010008
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010009
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010010
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010011
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010012
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010013
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010014
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010015
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010016
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010017
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010018
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010019
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010020
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010021
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010022
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010023
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010024
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010025
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010026
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010027
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010028
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010029
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010030
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010031
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010032
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010033
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010034
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010035
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010036
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010037
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010038
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010039
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pomerantz, Anne
Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:47 PM
Lundgren, Cynthia A
Aaron,
Cynthia Lundgren in our office has been assembling the documents for submission as per the below. In an effort to
conserve resources and expedite your receipt, she will begin sending you the press releases/news articles and position
statements electronically. She will send them both to you and to the Advice mailbox. Please let Cynthia and/or me know
if there is any problem with receipt or access to that sent. Thanks.
Anne
To: Advice; Karsh, Aaron
Cc: Albertsen, Mary
Subject: RE: Boeing Company, 19-CA-32431, Submission
Aaron,
Anne
To: Pomerantz, Anne
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
From: Advice
To: Albertsen, Mary
many there are?
NLRB-FOIA-00010040
Thanks -
Aaron Karsh
DAGC, Advice
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
NLRB-FOIA-00010041
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent:
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 2:57 PM
To:
Pomerantz, Anne; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne
Subject:
Boeing Interim Draft Order Revisions
Attachments:
PROPOSED INTERIM ORDER.doc1.doc
My suggestions in track changes.
Your thoughts?
R.
NLRB-FOIA-00010042
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010043
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010044
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pomerantz, Anne
Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne
RE: Boeing Interim Draft Order Revisions
Works for me.
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 11:57 AM
To: Pomerantz, Anne; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne
Subject: Boeing Interim Draft Order Revisions
Your thoughts?
R.
NLRB-FOIA-00010045
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Thursday, November 18, 2010 1:04 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Boeing, 19-CA-32431 - follow-up request
Rich,
Just an FYI - Dave Campbell informed me that they are gathering new information that the facility in
S. Carolina will not be up and running for several years contrary to what has been indicated in the
papers. Although he hoped to get this information to us by Friday, it is taking longer than expected.
Thus, he will be providing this information as well as responses to the questions below early next
week.
Dianne
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 9:26 AM
To: Todd, Dianne
Subject: RE: Boeing, 19-CA-32431 - follow-up request
Diane, Per the phone message I left you we are assembling this information, as well as more information regarding South
Carolina, but need more time. Please call me on my cell if this is a problem. Thanks, Dave C
E.6 Privacy
Thanks, Dave
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
Sent: Tue 11/16/2010 10:21 AM
To: David Campbell
Subject: Boeing, 19-CA-32431 - follow-up request
Dave,
Here is the list of information that we are requesting. Please let me know if you will not be able to
provide the information by Friday.
1. Historically, how many employees have there been in the unit at issue for the past 20-30
years?
2. How many employees total are there currently in the unit?
NLRB-FOIA-00010046
3. I understand from prior information submitted by the Union that there are currently 2610 unit
employees on the 787 assembly line in Everett. Does the Union have any further information
on how many employees would need to work on the current assembly line and on the surge
line once the lines are fully running?
4. How many of the current unit employees are in layoff status? How many of those would be
qualified to work on the assembly lines?
5. What is currently being done on the 787 assembly line?
6. Once the 787 assembly line and the surge lines are fully producing planes, what is the Unions
understanding as to how the lines would be staffed? Would employees be recalled from lay off
status? Would working unit employees be pulled from other areas? If so, what happens to the
area from which the employees were pulled? In essence, we are trying to understand how
employees can be moved around from one area to another if employees are already working
full-time. Is it possible or would Boeing have to hire new employees into the unit?
7. Has it occurred in the past where unit employees are pulled from one line to work on another?
How has this been done?
Thanks,
Dianne Todd
Board Agent
NLRB, Region 19
Ph:
206-220-6319
Fax: 206-220-6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010047
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Todd, Dianne
Thursday, December 09, 2010 12:28 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Pomerantz, Anne; Kobe, James; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Update from Union on Boeing Surge Line, 19-CA-32431
2010 12_03 Ltr to Todd.pdf
I spoke with Dave Campbell this morning to clarify the data he provided in paragraphs 3 and 6 of his
December 3, 2010 letter (attached). Campbell informed me that the information regarding the
Arguably Exemption 4
projection of
came from union representative Brett Cody
who is in charge of the 787 program. Cody gathered the numbers from Boeings quarterly
forecasting. However, Campbell states that these numbers continue to increase and do not
necessarily reflect
As an example, Boeing
Thus, it is
unknown how many employees there will actually be on the surge line.
Regarding movement of current work from Everett to S. Carolina, Campbell pointed out that although
the surge line is not fully running since the 787 is not ready for full assembly, there are employees
currently working on the surge line as described on page 2 of his December 3 letter. Presumably,
that is work that would be lost to current unit employees once the S. Carolina facility is up and
running.
Dianne
NLRB-FOIA-00010048
Union Position Statement
NLRB-FOIA-00010049
NLRB-FOIA-00010050
NLRB-FOIA-00010051
NLRB-FOIA-00010052
NLRB-FOIA-00010053
NLRB-FOIA-00010054
NLRB-FOIA-00010055
NLRB-FOIA-00010056
NLRB-FOIA-00010057
NLRB-FOIA-00010058
NLRB-FOIA-00010059
NLRB-FOIA-00010060
NLRB-FOIA-00010061
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Sunday, December 12, 2010 1:55 PM
Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Memo to Lafe from Advice
Dianne, Colleen,
Do we have a response to the question in fn. 24? Evidence?
Many thanks.
Rich
Richard L Ahearn
Regional Director, Region 19, Seattle
206 220 6310
NLRB-FOIA-00010062
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Memo to Lafe from Advice
Rich,
We have an affidavit from employee Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D) who said that
read Boeings memo 787
Second Line
Questions and Answers for Managers 10/28/9 at the time it was released as did the other Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D)
employees in
unit.
Good luck!
Dianne
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 10:55 AM
To: Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
Subject: Memo to Lafe from Advice
Dianne, Colleen,
Do we have a response to the question in fn. 24? Evidence?
Many thanks.
Rich
Richard L Ahearn
Regional Director, Region 19, Seattle
206 220 6310
NLRB-FOIA-00010063
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Pomerantz, Anne; Kobe, James; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne; Perkins, Victoria
Subject: The Boeing Company, 19-CA-32431
See attached Advice decision.
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010064
Advice Memorandum
DATE:
April 11, 2011
S.A.M.
TO:
Region 19
FROM:
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
line.
activity.
the agreement.

NLRB-FOIA-00010065
Case 19-CA-32431
- 2 -


FACTS

this Agreement[.]
ten employees.

Section 21.7
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00010066
Case 19-CA-32431
- 3 -


In

For example,




strike.

is a big deal[.]

NLRB-FOIA-00010067
Case 19-CA-32431
- 4 -
strike zone[.]


Kiga
above.
summit in Chicago.

IAM representatives

This was the first
ended.
1 In his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
2
Union had struck.

in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
NLRB-FOIA-00010068
Case 19-CA-32431
- 5 -
future strikes.

Doug Kight.
labor relations.

At a subsequent
supplier issues.

IAM

Boeing agreed to

customers.

During August,
NLRB-FOIA-00010069
Case 19-CA-32431
- 6 -

Meanwhile, the
assembly line.



The Union said

At the end of the


On September

But truthfully, it
NLRB-FOIA-00010070
Case 19-CA-32431
- 7 -

So weve become an
reliable supplier.
do.
weeks.

Carolina.
on October 1.

The Union

In

The Union
control.

When a Union
would get more.

NLRB-FOIA-00010071
Case 19-CA-32431
- 8 -

The Union

Also,
Carolina.
negotiations.


Conner


committee.
generation product.

Indeed, the

get back to him.
NLRB-FOIA-00010072
Case 19-CA-32431
- 9 -

We would obviously


...
And so some of the
Sound.

Our customers
couple of weeks.

Michalski explained
of conduct.
not respond.

He wanted

Keating did not
their State.

On
seven years.
NLRB-FOIA-00010073
Case 19-CA-32431
- 10 -

In a press

The managers were

line.


The
our customers eyes.


customers.
NLRB-FOIA-00010074
Case 19-CA-32431
- 11 -
Jim Albaugh.

The

history.
haul.
with the union.

of wages.
Charleston.

... And


NLRB-FOIA-00010075
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -

It was that
three years.
schedule.

Approximately 1,740
approximately 60%.
ACTION


Then, when Boeing

It also
election.
years.
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00010076
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
the Union.



Nor could Boeing
months.
problems.

activity.
rights.

NLRB-FOIA-00010077
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -

The Court


supplier strategy.9
plant.
employment.10
activity.12
Ibid.
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
See id. at 520.
10
See id. at 520-21.
11
See id. at 521.
12
See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00010078
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
date.13

Thus, telling

unlawful threats.17
13
14
th
mem. 50 F.3d 1037 (11
1997).
15
Aelco Corp., 326 NLRB 1262, 1265 (1998).

See also Dorsey
th
part 233 F.3d 831 (4
16
311 NLRB at 1200.

17
unionized).
18
Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00010079
Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -

An employer may
to predicting

Some statements

Others were
testifies.21

And statements
(1)

During the call,
Sound.22
(2)

The
19
20
consequences).
21
22
23
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00010080
Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -
(3)
strikes.25
(4)
activity.26
II.

Instead of
24
to employees.
25

If
26
NLRB-FOIA-00010081
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -

Future work
desirable 787 jobs.

layoffs.
layoffs.
implemented.

In


its nonunion plant.

employees.30
27
28
Ibid.
29
th
Cir. 1990).
30
See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00010082
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
have performed.




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

See also
32
33
34
35
NLRB-FOIA-00010083
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
activity.36
strike.
strike.38

And the Board has
right to strike.
36
37
380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38
See id. at 283-85.
39
See id. at 284.
40
See ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00010084
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
substantial.42


Boeing has

The substantial

In addition, Boeing
Washington.

In
striking.

th
41
See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
42
Cir.
See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
43
NLRB-FOIA-00010085
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent.44
rights.45



the employees.46
employee rights.47
Paper.

Second, Boeings

position.
44
228, 231 (1963).

th
(4
Cir. 2000).
45
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
46
47

See also
NLRB-FOIA-00010086
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -


And the many
with the union.48


Section 8(a)(3).
48
49
NLRB-FOIA-00010087
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
subject.
A.

Alternatively, the

unit jobs.54
50
51
52
Ibid.
53
54
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00010088
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
bargaining unit.55
an expanded unit.56
jobs.57

Even

The work
unit employees.


In fact,
escalating.
55
56
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
57
134 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998).

NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
58
59
NLRB-FOIA-00010089
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009.
Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
B.

The Board will

In interpreting

This
60
61
See id. at 812, fn. 19.
62
64
See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00010090
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
contract.66
agreement.




65
Id. at 1260.
66
Id. at 1262.
67
68
th
Cir.
NLRB-FOIA-00010091
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -

also lacks merit.


Absent
modifications.71
69

70
71
NLRB-FOIA-00010092
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
rights.72


At present,

Thus, the
72
the Act).
73
1093 (1996).
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00010093
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.J.K.
ROFs - 9
74

The Region should

In the

This will
NLRB-FOIA-00010094
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Omberg, Bob
Sent:
Friday, October 15, 2010 10:29 AM
To:
Katz, Judy
Subject:
FW: Boeing memo for Monday GC agenda
Attachments:
ADV.19-CA-32431.GCAgenda.Boeing.dlw.doc
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 2:09 PM
To: Omberg, Bob
Subject: Boeing memo
I didnt forget --
NLRB-FOIA-00010095
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010096
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010097
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010098
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010099
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010100
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010101
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010102
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010103
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010104
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010105
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010106
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010107
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010108
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010109
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010110
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010111
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010112
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010113
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010114
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010115
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010116
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010117
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010118
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010119
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010120
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Katz, Judy
Sent:
Tuesday, November 23, 2010 10:31 AM
To:
Willen, Debra L
Subject:
RE: Boeing's South Carolina facility
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Willen, Debra L
Read: 11/23/2010 10:49 AM
Thanks. Did you get the photo from my cell phone after all?
-----Original Message----From: Willen, Debra L
To: Katz, Judy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Omberg, Bob; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing's South Carolina facility
Our on-the-scene investigator Judy Katz snapped this picture in Charleston last week.
NLRB-FOIA-00010121
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Omberg, Bob
Sent:
To:
Katz, Judy; Canas, Heather
Cc:
Willen, Debra L
Subject:
Boeing 19-CA-32431 advice merits case closed 4/11; 10j case also closed
The RAB memo went out in Boeing on 4/11/11; so the ILB case comes off deferral and is also closed 4/11 as a no 10j
now decision awaiting the ALJ hearing the memo has this final footnote:
At this time, we do not reach a decision on the Unions request for
preliminary injunctive relief.
The Region should reassess whether Section
10(j) relief is warranted after the case is tried before the
Administrative Law Judge.
In the meantime, the Region should put evidence
in the record regarding the chilling impact of Boeings violative
statements and conduct to support the notice-reading remedy.
This will
facilitate use of the administrative record to demonstrate in a subsequent
Section 10(j) proceeding that preliminary injunctive relief is just and
proper.
NLRB-FOIA-00010122
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, July 14, 2011 1:37 PM
Farrell, Ellen
FW : Boeing settlement update
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 2:35 PM
To: Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW: Boeing settlement update
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Boeing settlement update
You're doing good and maybe something positive will come of it. Things are going pretty well here. Thanks, Lafe
--------------------------
Sent: Fri Jul 08 14:24:57 2011
Subject: Boeing settlement update
Talked to Campbell and Corsen and its a mixed bag. The ALJ suggested ex-parte settlement discussions where he would
meet separately with high ranking officials from both sides to try to get settlement discussions going. Neither side seems
interested in the idea. As to our proposal that The IAM approach Boeing with the supposal that they would be willing to
make a new meaningful proposal on job guarantees if Boeing would agree to a facilitator, is being met with resistance
from Corsen who believes Boeing should make the first move and that time will likely be when we have the documents
and the CEO has to testify. I pointed out to Corsen that getting these documents is no guarantee and successful district
court is not foregone. I told Corsen That District Court is where Boeing wants to be. On a better note, Corsen told me that
Buffinbarger was approached by someone in Boeing about setting up a mechanism for settlement talks. Unfortunately the
proposal was withdrawn the next day. However I told Corsen that this demonstrates that there is disagreement in Boeing
whether to settle now or drag this out until negotiation of a new contract and the IAM needs to think of creative ways to
exploit that dissension by giving those in Boeing who want to settle now some leverage. I told them the IAM has to move
now and not wait for Boeing. Corsen said he woulkd talk with Buffinbarger.
NLRB-FOIA-00010123
Page 1 of 1
Attorney Work Product
K earn ey, B arry J.
From :
Sent:
W illen, D ebra L
T uesday, O ctober 19, 2010 4:12 P M
K earney, B arry J
To:
Subject: B oeing's counsel
I he attorney w ho signed allot B oeing's position statem ents is
R icha rd H an kins 4
M cK enna Long & A ldridge
A tlanta
1-404-527-8372
I talked to R ich A hearn. H e's trying to confirm w ith the investigator that H ankins is the right guy, but she's in D C
at a training conference.
H e'llcallyou directly w hen he hears back from her.
10/19/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00010124
F ro m :
S e n t:
To:
C c:
S u b je c t:
W illen, D ebra L
W ednesday, O ctober 13, 2010 8 36 A M
.K earn ey, B arry J., S zapiro, M iriam
F arrell, E llen; S ophir, Jaym e
R E .B o e in g
See footnote 1 --
1989: 48 days
1995: 69 days
2005: 28 days
2008: 57 days
There were strikes before 1989, that I didn't put in the footnote.
if you give me another minute, I can send you those.
To: Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: Boeing
We say in memo that there were two stikes in the last 5 years. Do we know the strike
history?
Original Message
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: Boeing
No -- there are 18,000 employees in this unit and they work on several different airplanes
and parts.
Subject: RE: Boeing
Are the only planes manufactured by this unit the dream liner ?
Original Message
Subject: RE: Boeing
I don't have copies of the contracts. What I know is that at some point,
Arguably Ex. 4
Subject: Boeing
Did you tell me that
Arguably Ex. 4
f so what do we know about that?
NLRB-FOIA-00010125
F ro m :
S e n t:
To:
C c:
S u b je c t:
W illen, D ebra L
W ednesday, O ctober 13, 2010 8.39 A M
K earney, B arry J , S zapiro, M iriam
F arrell, E llen, S ophir, Jaym e
R E : B oeing
Earlier strikes:
1948 for 140 days, in 1965 for 19 days, in 1977 for 45 days
Subject: RE: Boeing
We say in memo that there were two stikes in the last 5 years. Do we know the strike
history?
Original Message
From: Willen, Debra*L

.
Subject: RE: Boeing
No -- there are 18,000 employees in thi unit and they work on several different airplanes
and parts.
Subject: RE: Boeing
Original Message
Subject: RE: Boeing
I d o n ' t h a v e c o p i e s o f t h e c o n t r a c t s . W h a t I k n o w i s t h a t a t s o m e p o i n t ,,
Arguably Ex. 4
Subject: Boeing
Arguably Ex. 4
If so what do we know about that?
NLRB-FOIA-00010126
P ag e 1 o f 1
F rom :
K earney, B arry J.
Sent:
T hursday, M ay 05, 2011 1:48 P M
T o:
S olom on, L afe E .; M attina, C eleste J.; G arza, Jose; A bruzzo, Jennifer
S u b ject:
FW :
Im portance: H igh
D raft response to L uttig
F rom : P erson, R obyn
S en t: T hursday, M ay 05, 2011 10:49 A M
T o: K earney, B arry J.
S u b ject:
Im p ortan ce: H igh
Boeing Company
L9-CA-32431
Dear Mr. Luttig:
T h i s i s i n r e s p o n s e t o y o u r M a y 3 rd l e t t e r t o m e c o n c e r n i n g t h e
above captioned case.
Your letter makes certain assertions and arguments concerning
statements in the press about this matter. Needless to say, I don't
agree with your contentions. .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 other's 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,
5/5/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010127
+119111
Te
co vvtA o a :tiv,
h ts v v ._
R d ) X V
e tto l;
ext TALtAsciczA r _ G era
C a w ',
/rvaeit cly.)
U 't }IQ L
,_ c .4 4 d _ b tu . 6 J v t to ;c .W
e_
en tilu d aztrizt____
G iA C -.
& t
-&T 10:71.4!itis
tercaot
-4 A 0 frt
tke
ofit4 -65
,* c 4
(V P h t M O
h d
J-n ti
N
ti
TA itt
lt 4 a 7 4 1 -, 6 ,-4 6 ( fr ite iti_ k ;0 (A ;A ti
G irtio
ac t rta-
7L
IN 4 nixa-et
t B e tt;tj
Iec.. 4-114,4-
.4 6 f a te tt 1 1 (5 , k re t4 1 AeG re
teete4.0,*4- 0.0tekirtia_
itd ciP ta;
O cAt
diew -));h,_ tvlo
014m -t
Vtga-
6 ? tA d e t8 ,4
1;41( 14/Y er6 0.; A .tiv z il
tvg d - tkt:o d d t L akiv_
o tto iti f tv 4 e 4,
teadAtkt
giA 410.3-,
L M L
(ti-1 tuA -7 4 - At tw icit471P til_
c e ltu o u t _ tits z n e -rk s ;
ttJ
P k _ e -o livcA s6 tr
.
/
4 _ 1 tw it
" f4 T 4
rird
1 1 A )-
Aut.tzmy)ett-e_
NLRB-FOIA-00010128
L L d A r t/ k in
e i6 0 .0 0
t -dv i tw
4 d e- id a Ly44 L et toe&
X yl__pm eeLA
NLRB-FOIA-00010129
.,
- B o ein g su b m issio n to th e G en eral C o u n sel
P ag e 1 o f 2
F rom :
W illen, D ebra L
S en t:
T hursday, D ecem ber 09, 2010 11 -23 A M
T o:
S op hir, Jaym e; S zapiro, M iria m ; K earn ey, B arry J.; F arrell, E lle n
C c:
K atz, Judy; O m berg, B ob
S u b ject: R E : B oeing subm ission to the G eneral C ounsel
U nion counse l called m e earlier th is w eek, h e is prep aring a n ew positio n state m ent on 10(j) an d a pa per on the
U n io n 's "in h e re n tly d e stru ctive " th e o ry o f vio la tio n H e a ske d m e to g e t b a ck to h im if B o e in g 's su b m issio n ra ise d
a n y q u e stio n s th a t h e sh o u ld a d d re ss A
Exemption 5
A n y th o u g h ts'?
T hanks, D eb
F ro m : S ophir, Jaym e
S en t: W ednesday, D ecem ber 08, 2010 12:25 P M
T o : W illen, D ebra L ; S zapiro, M iriam
S u b ject: F W : B oeing subm ission to the G eneral C ounsel
F ro m : Farrell,E llen
S en t: W ednesday, D ecem ber 08, 2010 12:18 P M
T o : K earney, B arry J.; S ophir, Jaym e; C olangelo, D avid (A dvice); M arx, E ric C .
C c: S olom on, Lafe E .; M attina, C eleste J.
S u b ject: F W : B oeing subm ission to the G eneral C ounsel
D id I m iss anyone'?
E llen
E llen F arrell
D eputy A ssociate G eneral C ounsel
D ivision of A dvice, N LR B
202-273-3810
E llen F arrell@ nlrb gov
F ro m : K ilberg P .C ., W illiam [m ailto:W K ilberg@ gibsondunn.corn]
S en t: W ednesday, D ecem ber 08, 2010 10:48 A M
T o : F arrell, E llen
C c: B aum eister, B ryan H ; C larke, Joan C ; G erry, B rett C ; rhankins@ m ckennalong.com ; M cG ill, M atthew D .;
B lankenstein, P aul; M artin, C hristopher J.
S u b ject: B oeing subm ission to the G eneral C ounsel
E llen : A s p ro m ised . B est, B ill
W illiam J. K ilb erg
1 2 /1 3 /2 0 1 0
NLRB-FOIA-00010130
B ong subm ission to the G eneral C ounsel
Page 2 of 2
G IB SO N D U N N
G ibson, D unn & C rutcher LLP
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 corn . w w w gibsondunn.com
<<Ltr to Lafe S olonnon pdf>>
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and
then immediately delete this message.
12/13/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00010131
F rom :
S en t:
T o:
C c:
S u b ject:
K earney, B arry J.
M o n d ay, A p ril 04, 2011 9:38 A M
'C orson C hristopher'
D avid C am pbell; C anter R obin
R E : C all from B oeing
Chris
Boing's response is very disappointing and you are undoubtedly correct that they are
looking for delay. However I believe we can't assume that and the loop needs to be closed.
I would ask that you get back to Gerry and tell him a previously scheduled meeting 6 weeks
from now is unacceptable and if Boeing is serious they will meet this week with a
proposal. Boeing response is predictable but I think they need to say it. Thanks for your
patience Barry
Original Message
From: Corson Christopher [mailto:ccorson@iamaw.org]
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2011 7 : 2 9 PM
Barry,
Boeing's lawyer, Brett Gerry, called me at 5:00 pm. He said he is the lead lawyer for
Boeing's commercial division.
His proposal was as follows. Since Joe Albaugh and Tom Buffenbarger are currently
scheduled to have dinner in May, Albaugh thinks that would be a good time to talk about
these issues. I asked if the company had a proposal at this time, and he said that there
isn't one -- at least nothing that he would tell me about.
I talked with Tom Buffenbarger after Gerry called. Tom's recollection is that the dinner
As you can imagine, the thought of putting off any attempt
is set for May 16th or 17th.

to have a serious discussion with us for another month and a half -- and even then just
over dinner -- is simply unacceptable. The company is not being serious.
Frankly, I hope you as offended by this suggestion as we are. You and Lafe have worked
very hard to bring about discussions that could lead to a more comprehensive and tailored
solution than we are likely to get from Board processes and remedies. We have shown
ourselves time and again to be serious about meeting in good faith with the company. But
you and we can't do it without Boeing, and it is crystal clear that Boeing is only
interested in stringing us all along.
Boeing made a commitment to you on Monday to contact us and then to tell you by the end of
the week whether they thought there were fruitful discussions with us to be had. I don't
think that a company lawyer calling me at 5 : 0 0 on Friday to say that the company has no
proposal at all except that Albaugh and Tom Buffenbarger could discuss things over an
already-scheduled dinner in a month and a half comes close to satisfying what they
promised you to do.
By mid-May the company will be much farther along in South Carolina, and our members in
Puget Sound will, by that time, know for sure that protected activity has become
meaningless for them. Boeing hammers its retaliatory message every day, and every day
shows that the company is getting away with it. The Act means something, or it really
doesn't.
The IAN sincerely appreciates all that Lafe and you have been trying to do, and we know
that this case will be big. But given what Boeing's chief officers have signaled to
companies all across the country about how to retaliate against organized workers for what
the statute says is protected activity, this case needs to be big. You would like Boeing
NLRB-FOIA-00010132
to talk to us in good faith, and so would we, but it is crystal clear that such
discussions are a false choice. The last three and a half months (since the company met
with Lafe and you in mid-December) show that they have no intention of engaging with us.
They have had months to call us and didn't, and they will shamelessly tell you anything to
just keep playing for more time.
The IAN hopes that time is up.
Sent from my iPad
Christopher Corson
General Counsel
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers 9000 Machinists Place Upper
Marlboro, MD 20772 301-967-4510 (office)
301-967-4594 (fax)
202-368-6484 (cell)
Notice: This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged and/or
confidential information. Use or dissemination by anyone other than the intended recipient
is prohibited.
NLRB-FOIA-00010133
F ro m :
S en t:
To:
C c:
S u b ject:
C orson C hristopher [ccorson@ iam aw .org ]
F riday, A pril01, 2011 7:29 P M
K earney, B arry J.
D avid C am pbell; C anter R obin
C allfrom B oeing
Barry,
Boeing's lawyer, Brett Gerry, called me at 5:00 pm. He said he is the lead 'lawyer for
Boeing's commercial division.
His proposal was as follows. Since Joe Albaugh and Tom Buffenbarger are currently
scheduled to have dinner in May, Albaugh thinks that would be a good time to talk about
these issues. I asked if the company had a proposal at this time, and he said that there
isn't one -- at least nothing that he would tell me about.
I talked with Tom Buffenbarger after Gerry called. Tom's recollection is that the dinner
As you can imagine, the thought of putting off any attempt
4( is set for May 16th or 17th.

to have a serious discussion with us for another month and a half -- and even then just
over dinner -- is simply unacceptable. The company is not being serious.
Frankly, I hope you as offended by this suggestion as we are. You and Lafe have worked
very hard to bring about discussions that could lead to a more comprehensive and tailored
solution than we are likely to get from Board processes and remedies. We have shown
ourselves time and again to be serious about meeting in good faith with the company. But
' you and we can't do it without Boeing, and it is crystal clear that Boeing is only
interested in stringing us all along.
Boeing made a commitment to you on Monday to contact us and then to tell you by the end of
the week whether they thought there were fruitful discussions with us to be had. I don't
think that a company lawyer calling me at 5 : 0 0 on Friday to say that the company has no
proposal at all except that Albaugh and Tom Buffenbarger could discuss things over an
already-scheduled dinner in a month and a half comes close to satisfying what they
promised you to do.
By mid-May the company will be much farther along in South Carolina, and our members in
Puget Sound will, by that time, know for sure that protected activity has become
meaningless for them. Boeing hammers its retaliatory message every day, and everyday
shows that the company is getting away with it. The Act means something, or it really
doesn't.
The IAN sincerely appreciates all that Lafe and you have been trying to do, and We know
that this case will be big. But given what Boeing's chief officers have signaled to
companies all across the country about how to retaliate against organized workers for what
the statute says is protected activity, this case needs to be big. You would like Boeing
to talk to us in good faith, and so would we, but it is crystal clear that such
discussions are a false choice. The last three and a half months (since the company met
with Lafe and you in mid-December) show that they have no intention of engaging with us.
They have had months to call us and didn't, and they will shamelessly tell you anything to
just keep playing for more time.
Sent from my iPad
Christopher Corson
General Counsel
International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers 9000 Machinists Place Upper
NLRB-FOIA-00010134
Marlboro, MD 20772 301-967-4510 (office)
301-967-4594 (fax)
202-368-6484 (cell)
Notice: This message is intended for the addressee only and may contain privileged and/or
confidential information. Use or dissemination by anyone other than the intended recipient
is prohibited.
NLRB-FOIA-00010135
N L R B F act Sheet: B oeing C om plaint
O n A pril20,2011,the N ationalL abor R elations B oard issued a com plaint against the
B oeing C om pany alleging that it violated federallabor 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 South C arolina for discrim inatory reasons.A hearing has been set for
June 14,2011 in Seattle before an adm inistrative law judge.
C lick here to see a new s release about the com plaint,and here to see a copy of the full
com plaint.
T he C harge and C om plaint
O n M arch 26,2010,the InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers,
D istrict L odge 751,filed a charge w ith the N L R 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.
Specifically,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 chillfuture strike activity,
w hich is protected under the N ationalL abor R elations A ct.
T he union also charged that the com pany violated the N ationalL abor R elations A ct by
failing to negotiate over the decision to transfer the production line.T he M achinists'
union has represented B oeing C om pany em ployees in the Puget Sound area of
W ashington,w here the planes are assem bled,and in Portland,O regon,w here som e
airplane parts are m ade,since 1975.
T hroughout the investigation of the charge,N L R B officials m et w ith both parties in
efforts to facilitate a settlem ent agreem ent.T he overw helm ing m ajority of N L R B charges
found to have m erit are settled by agreem ent.(See chart).A lthough no settlem ent w as
reached and the A gency w as com pelled to pursue litigation,the A cting G eneral C ounsel
rem ains open to a resolution betw een the parties.
T he com plaint (19-C A -32431) alleges that B oeing violated tw o sections of the N ational
L abor R elations A ct by m aking coercive statem ents to em ployees for engaging in
statutorily protected activities,and by deciding to place the second line at a non-union
facility,and to establish a parts supply program nearby,in retaliation for past strike
activity and to chill future strike activity by its union em ployees.
T he 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 official
said in a videotaped interview w ith the Seattle T im es new spaper: "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
NLRB-FOIA-00010136
paying today.It w as that w e cannot afford to have a w ork stoppage,you know ,every
three years."
T he com plaint also alleges that B oeing's actions w ere "inherently destructive of the
rights guaranteed em ployees by Section 7 of the A ct."
T he investigation did notfind m eritto the union's charge thatB 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 subjectofbargaining,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 L aw and Supporting C ases
T he N L R B enforces the N ationalL abor 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 T S O F E M PL O Y E E S
Section 7: E m ployees shallhave the right to self-organization,to form ,join,or assist
labor organizations,to bargain collectively through representatives oftheir 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 rightto refrain from any or allsuch
activities...
U N FA IR L A B O R PR A C T IC E S (relevant sections)
Section 8(a)Itshallbe an unfair labor practice for an em ployer
(1)to interfere w ith,restrain,or coerce em ployees in the exercise ofthe rights guaranteed
in section 7;
(3)by discrim ination in regard to hire or tenure ofem ploym entor any term or condition
ofem ploym entto encourage or discourage m em bership in any labor organization
C ases:
O n the 8(a)(1)charge:
T he U .S.Suprem e C ourt delineated the line betw een protected em ployer speech versus
unlaw fulem ployer speech under the N L R A in N L R B v.G isselPacking C orp.,395 U S
575, 618 (1969).
In G eneralE lectric C om pany,215 N L R B 520 (1974),the N ationalL abor R elations
B oard applied the G isseltest to set aside an election because the em ployer,citing
concerns aboutpossible future strikes,stated thatthe 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 inentstrike from threats to transfer w ork "m erely because ofthe
possibility ofa strike atsom e speculative future date."
Since 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
ofbusiness and jobs because ofunionization or strike disruptions w ithoutany factual
basis.In contrast,the B oard has found thatem ployers m ay law fully relate concerns raised
NLRB-FOIA-00010137
by custom ers (C urw ood,Inc.,339 N L R B 1137 (2003).T hey 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 T ow ing
E quipm ent,Inc.,342 N L R B 1074,1075-76 (2004)
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.T his
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 L R B 364(2001) 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 ell as em ployer conduct designed to forestall
em ployees from exercising their right to strike in the future (C entury A ir Freight,284
N L R B 730 (1987) 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 L R B 1322 (1996),w here em ployer isolated em ployee in retaliation for previous
and anticipated future strike activities).In N ational Fabricators,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 Steps
A hearing before an N L R B adm inistrative law judge has been scheduled for June 14 at
the N L R B 's Seattle office.A t the hearing,both parties w ill have an opportunity to
present evidence and argue in favor of their position.T he decision of the judge m ay be
appealed to the B oard in W ashington by the filing of exceptions by either party T he
B oard's decision could further be appealed to the federal courts.For a full description of
the N L R B process,please see:http://w w w .nlrb.gov/nIrb-process.
For m ore inform ation about the N ational L abor R elations B oard,please see our w ebsite
atw w w .nlrb.gov .T his fact sheet w as posted on 4/20/2011 and w illbe U pdated
periodically.
NLRB-FOIA-00010138
T f*e answ er to B oeing's labor dispute - T he W ashington Post
Page 1 of 3
be liii
asting III
rtpost
B ack to previous page
Tournewly
decorated m odel
hom es in four
M aryland
corn munities.
1 .-E N IN A R :
T he answ er to B oeing's labor dispute
B y Steven P earlstein,T uesday,A pril 26,12:47 P M
For high-stakes legal dram a, it doesn't get m uch bigger than last w eek's filing by the N ational L abor
R elations B oard charging that B oeing's decision to open a big new production facility in union-phobic
South C arolina w as m otivated by a desire to punish and iniiiiZ ale the strike-prone uniorrarirrE
established plant in Seattle.
If the N L R B decides to pursue the case through the federal courts and loses a real possibility given
the inclinations of the federal appeals courts it w ould effectively eviscerate w hat is left of w orkers'
right to strike,at least against large m ultinational com panies.
H ow ever,if the agency prevails and is able to force B oeing to open an additional production line for its
new 787 D ream liner in Seattle,it could finally put a brake on the steady flow of m anufacturing jobs to
"right to w ork" states in the South.
"R unaw ay com panies," of course,have been a feature in A m erican business ever since the first N ew
E ngland textile m ill shut its doors and m oved to the m ore hospitable labor m arkets dow n South.B ut
since the N ational L abor R elations A ct w as passed in 1935,com panies have had to be careful not to
expressly link their production and investm ent decisions to union activity,lest they be judged to have
crossed the line into union busting.
Indeed,the decision to m ove production to anti-union states has becom e so com m onplace that B oeing
could be excused for finally joining the procession after a costly tw o-m onth strike in 2008,follow ing an
'1U
earl
---.'
ier--T
or
eli-'
2
05. B oeing had other legitim ate business reasons for creating a second, $750 m illion
http://w w w .w ashingtonpost.com /business/econom y/the-answ er-to-boeings-labor-dispute/2.. . 4/27/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010139
.T he answ er to B oeing's labor dispute - T he W ashington Post
Page 2 of 3
production line in South C arolina for its rapidly grow ing 787 production,including low er labor costs
and severalhundred m illion dollars in subsidies from a state eager for 4,000 new factory jobs.
B ut the N L R B 's generalcounselsays that B oeing stepped over the line w hen its top executives said out
loud w hat m ost com panies only w hisper in the sanctity of the boardroom nam ely,thata significant
factor in the m ove w as the desire to reduce B oeing's vulnerability to delivery disruptions caused by
repeated strikes.T he N L R B cited interview s w ith localnew spapers,m em os to B oeing m anagers and
statem ents m ade by top executives to investors and W ashington state politicians.
Y ou can im agine the politicalruckus this has caused in South C arolina,w here voters have already
approved a constitutionalam endm entm eantto thw artunion organizing and the A FL-C IO has filed suit
againstG ov.N ikkiH aley for public statem ents thatunions w ere notw elcom e in the Palm etto State.
B usiness groups in W ashington also w enton high alert,accusing the O bam a adm inistration ofusing its
new m ajority on the N L R B to push a radicalpro-union agenda.(Sm alldetail:W hite H ouse C hiefof
Staff B illD aley is a form er B oeing director.)
G iven the public statem ents of B oeing officials,there is nothina radicalabout the N L R B 's decision to
hold a heari'rIT =1 on the com plaint filed by the InternationalA ssociation of M achinists.L afe
Solom on,the acting generalcounselw ho m ade the decision,is a m uch-adm ired careeer w ho is
prohibited from talking w ith board m em bers aboutthe case.Solom on spentseveralm onths trying to
broker a settlem ent,butran up againsta com pany and union thatare fed up w ith each other and
stubbornly determ ined to teach each other a lesson.

A lthough Solom on w as rightto initiate the proceedings,itis anything butclear thathe w illprevailin
court.
A til.futoixisfor B oeing to denthat it w ants to send a strong m essage to w orkers that they w illnow
pay a price for future strikes in term s ofw here the com pany decides to produce its planes.A tthe sam e
tim e,it is e uallcleatiat B oeing also has other legitim ate business reasons for opening a second line
in South C arolina.
T he view ofN L R B law yers seem s to be thatas long as there is a dem onstrable intenton the partofthe
com pany to m ove production in order to punish w orkers for paststrikes and discourage them from
1 future ones,B oeing's behavior is illegally coercive despite other legitim ate m otives or rationales that
m ight exist.
B oeing's view is thatavoiding production disruptions is a legitim ate bilisiness reason for m aking
1 investm entdecisions,irrespective ofother m otives,and thatits lack ofanim us tow ard its union is am ply
'dem onstrated by the 2,000 jobs thathave been created in PugetSound since its decision to expand to
South C arolina.
Y ou see the roblem : T he "right" for w orkers to strike w ithout undue coercion from the com pany is
'ar o square w ith the "right" of the com pany to protect itself from the consequences of production
disruptions.B oth "rights" seem to have am ple supportin the case law .
T he answ er,I w ould suggest,is to be found not in the case law but in the clear and unam biguous w ords
ofthe N ationalL abor R elations A ct and the history behind it.In a 1993 law review article,N ew Y ork
U niversity law professor C ynthia E stlund w rote thatin passing the act,C ongress soughtto restrain
corporate pow er and tilt the econom ic playing field in favor of w orkers.T he idea w as to outlaw union-
avoidance strategies that,w hile econom ically rationalfor any one firm ,w ould be econom ically harm ful
http://w w w .w ashingtonpost.com /business/econom y/the-answ er-to-boeings-labor-dispute/2.. .4/27/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010140
..
,
. T 1 -.eansw er to B oeing's labor dispute - T he W ashington Post
Page 3 of 3
for the nation as a w hole if w idely adopted.
T oday,w e m ay find allthat quaintly or m enacingly socialistic,butit is stillthe law ofthe land,
ea-rerE ave a duty to enforce.If B oeing or the C ham ber of
one thatL afe Solom on and his

C om m erce or the South C ar ina politicalestablishm ent w ant to change or repealthe law ,it is certainly
w ithin their rights to try.A fter 75 years,itw ould be a usefuldebate for the country to have again.B ut
given the further consolidation ofcorporate pow er and tw o decades ofstagnantw ages,I'm notsure
they'lllike how itturns out.
S p o n so red L in ks
H O TTE S T O IL S TO C K IN U S !
W illthe "new B akken" oilfind pum p w ealth into your portfolio'? O nly if you act now .
w w w .A m ericanE nergyR eport.com
D IR E C TV for your B usiness
S ave m oney and im prove your custom ers experience w ith D IR E C TV .
w w w .directv.com /forbusiness
N ew Issue A lert O B JE
H ot S tock O bscene Jeans Inc.E xplosive Investm ent P otential
w w w .O bsceneJeans.com .
B u y a lin k h ere
0 2011 T he W ashington Post C om pany
http://w w w .w ashingtonpost.com /business/econom y/the-answ er-to-boeings-labor-dispute/2.. .4/27/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010141
B usiness & T echnology I M achinists file unfair labor charge against B oeing over C harlest... Page 1 of 3
M yT im es:
hi
T h e A n s w e r to
W ho is C alling"'
N W (obs I N W autos I N W hom es I N W source I Free C lassifieds I seattletenes corn
T he S eattle T im es C om pany
1"?1,) Ig
"eriic$eattlerames
B u sin ess / T ech n ology
47F
W inner ofE ightP ulitzer P rizes
L o c a l N a tio n /W o rld B u s in e s s /T e c h S p o rts E n te rta in m e n t L iv in g T ra v e l O p in io n
H om e
O ur netw ork sites
a.P rint
C la ssifie d s B u y a d s
Y o u r acco u n t I L o g in I C o n tact u s
ith)046 .R yza ,N W lobs,
nw
sitabiani
ty pt.bl'snad .4.re 4 20 10 a 4 3 , 1,M , P ad ,: m ad iS A Ji.n e 5 2 0 1 0 at a .1
IQ C o m m en ts (1 1 7 ) (2 1 E -m ail article
S eat ch
seattletim es co rn I A d v an ced
S h o p p in g J o b s A u to s H o m e s R e n ta ls
Q u ick lin k s T raffic I M o v ies I R estau ran ts I T o d ay 's ev en ts I V id eo I P h o to s I In teractiv es I B lo g s I F o ru m s I S u b scrib er S erv ices
!kyrirl
D S h are
V ideo
N W W a n d e rin g s I S h o o p
s h e a re r
M ach in ists file u n fair lab o r ch arg e ag ain st B o e in g o ver
C h arlesto n
E ifion M organ,of W ares,visits
th e P acific N o rth w est to v isit h is
% W es fam ily,and to shear
sheep
ch afe n o th al tIle
P ela L 1 4 B a rd
' fle A rr.? ..n s ts J i.ri r...S led a co m e a n l ag 2 in s L io .in g w ith th e rk.E1/111d
a seco n o D ream t n o r cases - ely I n o n
co m p zn y ssas 'etaeati"g fo r a 2 C G 8 u n io n stn k a ssn e - II ce:A ceC ast '011 10

C h an n sto n , S C , rath er !..a n E sre tt
B y D om inic G ates
S eattle T im es aerospace reporter
C en su s 2 0 1 0 I
C hinese
lan g u ag e class
M e 4 B -1 7 " L ib e rty B e lle " A U D y n a m ic
D uel I W ill
"
w e be
w itn esses?
E M P u n v eils N irv an a ex h ib it
111
_ L I
T h e M ach inists u nion has filed a co m plain t again st
B oeing w ith the N ational L abor R elations B oard
(N L R B ), charging that the com pany w as retaliating
for a 2008 union stnke w hen it decided last fall to put
a seco n d D ream lin er assem b ly lin e in C h arlesto n ,
S C , rather than E v erett
It is illegal under the N ational L abor R elations A ct for
em ployers to retaliate against w orkers for engaging

in law ful activities, including strikes
IA 'S P rin g 'G g ;M e 2 0 1 1
M o re v id eo s I,
ADVERT/41.4
T om W roblew ski
R elated
M achinists in S pokane ratify contract w ith job
g u aran tees
T he unfair-labor practices com plaint by the
International A ssociation of M achinists (IA M ) D istrict
751 is being investigated by the N L R B 's S eattle
F ed eral m ed iato r p u sh es talk s to en d B o ein g stn k e
office
In a statem ent, D istrict 751 president T om W roblew ski cited public declarations by senior B oeing
ex ecu tiv es ty in g the selection of N o rth C h arlesto n to a desire to avoid M achin ists'strik es in the P ug et
S ound region
S u ch d eclaratio n s, W ro b lew sk i said , "sen d a m essag e to w o rk ers th at th ey sh o u ld n o t stan d u p fo r th eir
nghts at the bargaining table W e w ill not allow this unlaw fu l intim idation to stand as w e prepare for the
2012 contract negotiations "
B o ein g sp o k esm an T im H ealy said th e co m p an y b eliev es th e ch arg es are "m en tless "
T he IA M struck B oeing for tw o m onths in fall 2008, the fourth stnke in a decade E arly the follow ing year,
B oeing C hief E xecutive Jim M cN erney told W ashington's co ngressional d elegation th e repeated strikes
w ere a m ajo r p ro b lem an d th e co m p an y w o u ld seek an o th er lo catio n fo r its seco n d 7 8 7 assem b ly lin e
u n less th e u n io n ag reed to a lo n g -term n o -strik e clau se
"W e w ere entirely transparent w ith th e IA M ," H ealy said "W e needed an agreem ent that w ould allow us to
m eet o u r cu sto m er co m m itm en ts"
In d irect n eg o tiatio n s w ith th e u n io n last su m m er an d fall, th e tw o sid es failed to reach ag reem en t an d
B o ein g an n o u n ced th e n ew assem b ly lin e w o u ld g o to N o rth C h arlesto n
T he com plaint w as filed w ith the N L R B in M arch T hat sam e m onth, Jim A lbaugh, the chief executive of
B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes, said in a S eattle T im es interview that "the overriding factor (in choosing
S o u th C aro lin a) 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 are p ay in g 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"
Is that an illegal repnsal, punishing a past strike? O r is it a legitim ate strategic choice, avoiding future
strikes?
A P V id eo
"O u r d ecisio n h as ev ery th in g to d o w ith b ein g a reliab le su p p lier an d is n o t a rep n sal fo r th e p ast," said
B oeing's H ealy
R ichard A hearn, the N L R B regional director
http://seatt1etim es.nw source.com /htm 1/businesstechno1ogy/2012034258_boeing05.htm l
5/3/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010142
B usiness & T echnology I M achinists file unfair labor charge against B oeing over C harlest...Page 2 of 3
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 case 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 w ork in C h arlesto n.
A s it is, A h eam said , h e can n o t p o in t to an y "b rig h t lin e" in th e law th at m ak es it im m ed iately clear w h eth er
trilhO nO w
F bcdirg F ears
tecom es
P rom pt
N osy S eals
killed sane bin
F eacL etiors
L aden
m e reit n est
E ntertainm ent I T op V ideo I W orld IO ffbeat V ideo I S c._
T ech
th is w as illeg al retaliatio n o r a leg itim ate strateg y .
T h e N L R B is still g ath erin g ev id en ce. A b eam said an in itial ru lin g is w eek s aw ay an d w o u ld b e su b ject to
M a rke tp la ce
ap p eal.
D o m in ic G a te s: 2 0 6 -4 6 4 -2 9 6 3 o r clse le _ se se A ttle tin
I2 1 E -m ail article
P rint
tat S hare
M ore from ou r n etw ork
B in L ad en raid y ears in th e m ak in g , m in u tes in
ex ecu tio n F rom S e attle T im e s N ation & W orld
E x - b illio n aire h it w ith fo rced b an k ru p tcy
p etitio n F rom S e attle T im e s B usine ss & T ech nology
pet classifieds
M ore from th e W eb
S elected ter y o u n y a S p o n so r
A d o ra b le B ro w n F t
L a b ra d o o d le P u p p ie s !!!
W h ere d o y o u r g aso lin e d o llars g o ? F rom
E xxo nM obil's P erspectives
'A rm y W iv es' S easo n 5 , E p iso d e 8 R ecap F rom
T V S quad
rest a p et list th e
S C law m ak ers criticize N L R B co m p lain t F rom
U K D eclin es to P ro secu te B T , P h o rm O v er
S eattle T im es Local N ew s
S p y in g S o ftw are F rom P C W orld
general classifieds
S C atto rn ey g en eral w an ts B o ein g co m p lain t
E L L E R ead ers' P rize P ick s: M ay F rom E LLE .com
d ro p p ed F rom S eattle T im es LocalN ew s
A p p le so ars in C h in a's fo rb id d in g retail
m ark etp lace F rom S e attle T im e s B usine ss &
G arage& estate sales
Furni ture & hom e fu rn ish in g s
E1ectronic:5
E u ro p ean L eg islato rs C o n sid er N et F ilter fo r
E u ro p e F rom
P C W orld
b o ars th is]
T echnology
just listed
A R C F rench B ulldog C ham pion B loodlines
A K C R eg B oxer Puppies
B eautiful 3.y y e a r old S hiba Inn looking to...
M ore listings
M o re B u sin ess & T ech n o lo g y
S ell your stuff
S earch classifieds
U P D A T E - 09:48 A M
P O S T A F R E E LIS T IN G
E x x o n M o b il w in s ru lin g in A la s k a o il s p ill c a s e
U P D A T E -09 32 A M
B ank s to c k s p u s h in d e x e s h ig h e r; o il p ric e s d ip
U P D A T E - 08:04 A M
F ord C E O M u !a lly g e ts $ 5 6 .5 M in sto ck a w a rd
U P D A T E 0 7 .5 4 A M
U n d erw ater m o rtg ag es rise as h o m e p rice s fa ll
N EW
09 43 A M
W arn er B ro s. to o ffer m o v ie ren tals o n F aceb o o k
M o s t re a d I M o s t c o m m e n te d M o s t e - m ailed
M o re B u sin e ss 8 T e c h n o lo g y h e a d lin e s..
H ide com m ents / S how com m ents
C o m m en ts (1 1 7 )
P O U N D T H E L A S T N A IL in the coffin! G eesh... lA M still doesn't get it.

P osted on June 4,2010 at 4.56 P M
op G o R e n to n G o Ju m p to c o m m e n t
Is the union trying to m ount a P R cam paign A G A IN S T them selves? 'C ause the seem to be doing it
very w ell. P osted on June 4. 2010 at 5:23 P M by A P asserB y. Jum p to com m ent
M ars right. A ntagonize the goose that lays golden eggs ...and she'll fly aw ay.. P osted on June
457 P M
4,2010
1. B in Laden's dem ise. U S rejoices after a decade
2.
D espite D N A evidence, som e doubt bin Laden
really dead
3. A uburn shooting victim s are brothers of U W
football recruit I T he B lotter
B in Laden raid years in m aking, m inutes in
4.
execution
5. M an unknow ingly liveblogs bin Laden operation
6. T eacher shaves for first tim e since S ept. 11, 2001
at
b y im ju stsa y in Ju m p to c o m m e n t
7. S eahaw ks shrug off analysts'poor grades for draft
results
8. T ension as W hite H ouse Situation R oom w atched
raid
9. C ascade coach killed trying to help brother
10. T ense, finalm inutes of bin Laden pursuit
R e a d a ll c o m m e n ts ] S h a re y o u r th o u g h ts
B :1 M o st v ie w
S p o n so re d L istin g s
e d im a g e s
T op S tock for 2011 - G T S O
D esperate S earch F or R are E arth M inerals S olved. R are O pportunity
w w w .R areE arthE xporters.com
SH O C K IN G : 46" L C D T V s for $54.09
T oday O N L Y : U nique site sells 46 L C D T V s for up to 98% off retailprice.
LocalToday9.com
P re s R e d u ce s M o rtg a g e s
If you ow e under $729k, you probably qualify for G ov't R efi P rogram s
w w w .S eeR efinanceR ates.com
G et hom e delivery today ,
S ite m ap
N ew s
M a rk e tp la c e
S u b s c rib e r
http://seattletim es.nw source.com /htm libusinesstechnology/2012034258_boeing05.htm l
S ervices
5/3/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010143
. . .
B usiness & T echnology I M achinists file unfair labor charge against B oeing over C harlest...Page 3 of 3
6 O ur netw ork sites

\
seattlehm es co rn I A d vanced
H om e
Local
N ation/W orld
B u sin e ssre ch
E ntertainm ent
Living
Travel
S ports
O pinion
E xtras
T oday's new s index
Jobs
A utos
H om es
R entals
C lassifieds
S hopping
P ersonals
P ost an ad
S ubscribe
a-E dition
P ay for your subscription
S ubscriber rew ards
T em porary,stops
O th e r e d itio n s
N ew s by e-m ail
M obile
R S S feeds
e-E dition
Low -graphic
T w itter
S ocialm edia
M alw are attacks are a grow ing problem on allW eb sites R ead m ore about w hat to do if you see som ething suspicious
P rivacy statem ent I T erm s of service
C opynght 0 2011 T he S eattle T im es C om pany
http://seattletim es.nw source.com /htm l/businesstechnology/2012034258_boeing05.htm l
5/3/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010144
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010145
W all S treet Jo u rn al O p in io n M ay 11, 2011
B oeing Is P ro-G row th, N ot A nti-U nion
W ashington's actions have assaulted the capitalist principles that have sustained A m erica's
com petitiveness since it becam e the w orld's largest econom y nearly 140 years ago.
B y J IM M C N E R N E Y
D eep into the recent recession, B oeing decided to invest m ore than $1 billion in a new factory in S outh
C arolina. S urging global dem and for our innovative, new 787 D ream liner exceeded w hat w e could build
on one production line and w e needed to open another.
This w as good new s for B oeing and for the econom y. The new jetliner assem bly plant w ould be the first
one built in the U .S . in 40 years. It w ould create new A m erican jobs at a tim e w hen m ost em ployers are
hunkered dow n. It w ould expand the dom estic footprint of the nation's leading exporter and m ake it m ore
com petitive against em erging plane m akers from C hina, R ussia and elsew here. A nd it w ould bring hope
to a state burdened by double-digit unem ploym ent w ith the construction phase alone estim ated to
create m ore than 9,000 total jobs.
E ighteen m onths later, a N orth C harleston sw am p has been transform ed into a state-of-the-art, green-
energy pow ered, 1.2 m illion square-foot airplane assem bly plant. O ne thousand new w orkers are hired
and being trained to start building planes in July.
It is an A m erican industrial success story by every m easure. W ith 9% unem ploym ent nationw ide, w e need
m ore of them and soon.
Y et the N ational Labor R elations B oard (N LR B ) believes it w as a m istake and that our actions w ere
unlaw ful. It claim s w e im properly transferred existing w ork, and that our decision reflected "anim us" and
constituted "retaliation" against union-represented em ployees in W ashington state. Its rem edy: R everse
course, B oeing, and build the assem bly line w here w e tell you to build it.
...
Irf
ti iiilli=11* I
:', - '. ,
, , . 'tf:M
..
4,,,,- -
J'
7 ,46
tfn
;.
,:
-'-.
1,73} In r11111W
"
,-.1.11 '''t"', i la Ett'"it....,,i,
is.i..--, #Ent,
..-- --,-..e...,.--11,7"; ' 1
To
L,
,.., , ,
e 1 ,4 1 -
,I -
i '- '4 4 1 0 3:',."1
A S S O C IA T E D P R E S S
B oeing em ployees w ork on the 787 D ream liner at the N orth C harleston, S .C ., facility.
The N LR B is w rong and has far overreached its authority. Its action is a fundam ental assault on the
capitalist principles that have sustained A m erica's com petitiveness since it becam e the w orld's largest
econom y nearly 140 years ago. W e've m ade a rational, legal business decision about the allocation of our
capital and the placem ent of new w ork w ithin the U .S . W e're confident the federal courts w ill reject the
claim , but only after a significant and unnecessary expense to taxpayers.
NLRB-FOIA-00010146
M ore w orrisom e,though,are the potentialim plications of such brazen regulatory activism on the U .S .
m anufacturing base and long-term job creation.The N LR B 's overreach could accelerate the overseas
f lig h t o f g o o d , m id d le - c la s s A m e r ic a n jo b s . i
C ontrary to the N LR B 's claim ,our decision to expand in S outh C arolina resulted from an objective
analysis of the sam e factors w e use in every site selection.W e considered locations in severalstates but
narrow ed the choice to either N orth C harleston (w here sections of the 787 are built already) or E verett,
(/ W ash ., w h ich w o n th e in itial 787 assem b ly lin e in 2003.
O ur union contracts expressly perm it us to locate new w ork at our discretion.H ow ever,w e view ed E verett
as an attractive option and engaged voluntarily in talks w ith union officials to see if w e could m ake the
business case w ork.A m ong the considerations w e sought w ere a long-term "no-strike clause" that w ould
ensure production stability for our custom ers,and a w age and benefit grow th trajectory that w ould help in
our cost battle against A irbus and other state-sponsored com petitors.
D espite m onths of effort,no agreem ent w as reached.U nion leaders couldn't m eet expectations on our
key issues,and w e couldn't accept their dem ands that w e rem ain neutralin allunion-organizing
cam paigns and essentially guarantee to build every future B oeing airplane in the P uget S ound area.In
O ctober 2009,w e m ade the C harleston selection.
Im portant to our case is the basic fact that no existing w ork is being transferred to S outh C arolina,and not
a single union m em ber in W ashington has been adversely affected by this decision.In fact,w e've since
added m ore than 2,000 union jobs there,and the hiring continues.The 787 production line in E verett has
a planned capacity of seven airplanes per m onth.The line in C harleston w illbuild three additional
airplanes to reach our 10-per-m onth capacity plan.P roduction of the new U .S .A ir Force aerialrefueling
tanker w illsustain and grow union jobs in E verett,too.
B efore and after the selection,w e spoke openly to em ployees and investors about our com petitive
realities and the business considerations of the decision.The N LR B now is selectively quoting and
m ischaracterizing those com m ents in an attem pt to bolster its case.This is a distressing signalfrom one
arm of the governm ent w hen others are pushing for greater openness and transparency in corporate
decision m aking.
It is no secret that over the years B oeing and union leaders have struggled to find the right w ay to w ork
together.Idon't blam e that allon the union,or allon the com pany.B oth sides are w orking to im prove that
dynam ic,w hich is also a top concern for custom ers.V irgin A tlantic founder R ichard B ranson put it this
w ay follow ing the 2008 m achinists'strike that shut dow n assem bly for eight w eeks: "If union leaders and
,m anagem ent can't get their act together to avoid strikes,w e're not going to com e back here again.W e're
thinking,W ould w e ever risk putting another order w ith B oeing?'It's that serious."
'D espite the ups-and-dow ns,w e hold no anim us tow ard union m em bers,and w e have never sought to
threaten or punish them for exercising their rights,as the N LR B claim s.To the contrary,union m em bers
are part of our com pany's fabric and key to our success.A bout 40% of our 155,000 U .S .em ployees are
represented by unions a ratio unchanged since 2003.
N or are w e m aking a m ass exodus to right-to-w ork states that forbid com pulsory union m em bership.W e
have a sizable presence in 34 states; half are unionized and half are right-to-w ork.W e m ake decisions on
w ork placem ent based on business principles not out of em otion or spite.For exam ple,last year w e
added new m anufacturing facilities in Illinois and M ontana.O ne w ork force is union-represented,the
other is not.B oth decisions m ade business sense.
The w orld the N LR B w ants to create w ith its com plaint w ould effectively prevent allcom panies from
placing new plants in right-to-w ork states if they have existing plants in unionized states.B ut as an
unintended consequence,forw ard-thinking C E O s also w ould be reluctant to place new plants in unionized
states lest they be forever restricted from placing future plants elsew here across the country.
NLRB-FOIA-00010147
U .S .tax and regulatory policies already m ake it m ore attractive for m any com panies to build new
m anufacturing capacity overseas.That's som ething the adm inistration has said it w ants to change and is
taking steps to address.It appears that m essage hasn't m ade it to the front offices of the N LR B .
M r.M cN erney is chairm an,president and C E O of the B oeing C o.
NLRB-FOIA-00010148
Pr'ess R eleases - U nited States Senator O rrin H atch
Page 1 of 14
U nited States Senator O rrin H atch
Press releases are archived according to their release date.For press releases
by topic,please see the Issue Positions page.
M ay 6,2011
H atch B lasts D angerous N L R B
B oeing D ecision; C alls O n
P resident T o W ithdraw N om ination
O f G eneral C ounsel
U tah Senator Says D ecision W illH ave C hilling Im pact on
E conom ic G row th; O pens the D oor to Im posing U nion
R equirem ents on R ight-to-W ork States
W A SH IN G T O N In a speech this m orning,U .S.Senator O rrin H atch (R -
U tah) blasted a recent com plaint filed by the N ational L abor R elations B oard
(N L R B ) that w ould punish B oeing for opening a plant in South C arolina and
requiring B oeing to do that production w ork in its W ashington facilities.
C iting the linkage betw een unions and the D em ocratic party,H atch,a
m em ber of the Senate H ealth E ducation L abor and Pensions C om m ittee that
has jurisdiction over the N L R B ,today called on President O bam a to pull the
nom ination of L afe Solom on to serve as N L R B G eneral C ounsel. H e also
explained that this decision w ill have a chilling im pact on the nation's
econom y and on business activity by allow ing federal bureaucrats to
determ ine state R ight-to-W ork decisions that end up serving as a back-door
effort to im pose "card check" requirem ents on the nation.B elow are
excerpts of H atch's speech:
O N N L R B 'S B O E IN G C O M PL A IN T :
The N ational Labor R elations B oard's A cting G eneralC ounsel Lafe
Solom on after 17 m onths of indecision,issued one of the m ost far-reaching
and outrageous com plaints ever issued by the B oard against a private
business.This com plaint against B oeing is easily one of the m ost outlandish
and regrettable com plaints I have seen in all of m y years ill the Senate.
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm /releases?C ontentR ecord_id=33ae54e2-49f5-4633-.. . 5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010149
Pi-ess R eleases - U nited States Senator O rrin H atch
Page 2 of 14
E very citizen in South C arolina,and every M em ber of C ongress
R epublican or D em ocrat ought to be outraged by the N LR B 's action.To
borrow from F rank Sinatra,if they can do it there,they can do it anyw here.
If the N LR B can do this in South C arolina,disrupting business and killing
jobs,it can happen anyw here,including U tah or any other R ight-to-W ork
state.It can happen even in non-R ight-to-W ork states as w ell.
G overnm entactions like the ones w e have seen w ith the B oeing C om plaint
are debilitating to our econom y at a tim e w hen w e are struggling to recover
from one of the N ation's w orst recessions since the G reat D epression.Such
bureaucratic decisions cost jobs at a tim e w hen w e are struggling to reduce
unem ploym ent.They delay business decision m aking and interfere w ith
com petition.They underm ine business confidence in governm ent.W hy
should com panies investin expanding business in the U nited States if,w ith
the drop of the hat,a federal bureaucrat can sim ply reverse that decision
and destroy thatinvestm ent?
O N W H Y T H E N L R B C O M PL A IN T FL IE S IN T H E FA C E O F T H E
FA C T S:
The m ost im portantfactor is that the w ork in South C arolina w as new w ork,
w hich B oeing w as notobligated to perform in the State of W ashington under
its collective bargaining agreem ent.B oeing sim ply decided,for sound
business reasons to open a new facility to perform new w ork in a business-
friendly state.This is som ething businesses do all the tim e.
N ota single job union or non-union w as lostin the State of
W ashington as a result of B oeing's decision.In fact,over 2,000 new jobs
have been created in P uget Sound since the com pany's announcem ent to
begin new w ork atthe new facility.This is notto m ention South C arolina,
w here hundreds of new jobs w ere created.A dded jobs in W ashington plus
added jobs in South C arolina sounds like a w in-w in for A m erican w orkers to
m e.
So,yes,B oeing's decision to build its new plant in South C arolina w as good
for just about everybody.Yet,w ithout asserting any evidence of anti-union
anim us on the part of B oeing or of an adverse im pact on union w orkers .
exercising their legalrights,the N LR B filed its com plaintand has soughtto
step in and m ake B oeing's business decisions for them .
B oeing had no legal obligation to locate any and all new w ork in P uget
Sound.It w as not obligated under any collective bargaining agreem ent to
keep the w ork there.It sim ply chose to locate new w ork and new expansion
in a business-friendly,R ight-to-W ork state.
O N L A B O R 'S C O N N E C T IO N S W IT H T H E D E M O C R A T IC PA R T Y :
W hat m akes this case particularly ugly is that this is a case of the regulators
http ://hatch.senate.gov/public/index .c fm /releases?C ontentR ecord_i d=33ae54e2-49f5-4633-...5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010150
Piess R eleases - U nited States Senator O n -in H atch
Page 3 of 14
conveniently supporting the interests of B ig Labor against private
enterprise.W hat m akes this case appalling is that it is a gift-w rapped
present to the interests that just-so-happen to be the largest contributors to
D em ocratic cam paigns.
O N U R G IN G T H E PR E SID E N T T O W IT H D R A W SO L O M O N
A PPO IN T M E N T T O N L R B :
The N LR B 's A cting G eneralC ounsel em phasis on the acting sitting in
his Ivory Tow er in W ashington,D C essentially substituted his business
judgm ent for that of a private corporation.In essence,M r.Solom on claim ed
the authority to determ ine w here and how a private com pany is perm itted to.
do business.In fact,in light of his recent actions,including the B oeing
C om plaint,it's hard to conceive of a w orse choice for acting G eneral
C ounseL
That decision should be revisited.That 's w hy Jam w riting to P resident
O bam a to requestthat he w ithdraw his appointm ent of M r.Solom on.A nd,
as far as P resident O bam a's nom ination of M r.Solom on for a full term as
G eneral C ounsel is concerned,itis difficult to im agine how M r.Solom on
could ever be confirm ed by the Senate in view of his actions w hile serving as
A cting G eneralC ounsel.
O N T H IS D E C ISIO N B E IN G A B A C K D O O R M E A N S O F
E N A C T IN G L IB E R A L L A B O R PO L IC Y :
The contem ptfor the A m erican people on display in this decision is
astounding.The P resident and congressional D em ocrats w ere unable to
enactthe E m ployee F ree C hoice A cteven w ith superm ajorities in C ongress.
B ut not to w orry.Just have som e bureaucrat do it.
B elow is H atch's full speech he delivered on the Senate floor this
m orning:
I rise to speak aboutan unfortunate and,quite frankly,disturbing m atter.
W hile w e w ere allback hom e during the m ostrecentSenate recess,the
N ationalLabor R elations B oard's A cting G eneralC ounsel Lafe Solom on
after 17 m onths of indecision,issued one of the m ostfar-reaching and
outrageous com plaints ever issued by the B oard againsta private business.
This com plaintagainstB oeing is easily one of the m ostoutlandish and
regrettable com plaints I have seen in allof m y years in the Senate.
The N LR B 's A cting G eneralC ounsel em phasis on the acting sitting in
his Ivory Tow er in W ashington,D C essentially substituted his business
judgm entfor thatof a private corporation.In essence,M r.Solom on claim ed
the authority to determ ine w here and how a private com pany is perm itted to
NLRB-FOIA-00010151
Press R eleases -U nited States Senator O rrin H atch
Page 4 of 14
do business.
T his is a specious claim .B oeing did nothing w rong,and I am confident that
itw illultim ately prevail.
Y et,this com plaint carries a potentialcost of billions of dollars and
thousands of new jobs for the com pany and the com m unity w here it chose to
operate.
So w hy m ake this decision at all?
W hy attack a private com pany w ith a legalchallenge thatw illcostan
enorm ous am ountofm oney to defend,disrupts business,underm ines the
efforts ofstates to increase jobs and prom ote econom ic recovery,butthat
w illfailfor its lack of m erit?
T he answ er is sim ple.T he unions w anted it.
T his is justanother chapter in the sorry relationship betw een unions,big
governm ent,and the party ofbig governm ent.
I have to say,I adm ire M r.Solom on's m oxie.B y m aking this decision
during a congressionalrecess,it is alm ost as if he thought it m ight avoid our
scrutiny.M aybe he thought that new s like this m ight not m ake its w ay back
to the states.T o that,I say: nice try,but you w illnot escape the scrutiny of
the A m erican people w hen it com es to an action this over-the-top.
Sunshine w illfallon a decision this politically m otivated.A nd in the light
of day,the decision and the decisionm akers are going to look aw fully bad.
T he N L R B 's B oeing C om plaint has been w idely criticized in the m edia,
here in the Senate by a num ber ofm y colleagues,and throughoutthe
business com m unity as a prim e exam ple ofa federalbureaucracy run am ok.
Butthis is m ore than another exam ple ofan unaccountable bureaucracy
harm ing job creators and em ployees.W hat m akes this case particularly ugly
is that this is a case of the regulators conveniently supporting the interests of
Big Labor againstprivate enterprise.
W hatm akes this case appalling is thatitis a gift-w rapped presentto the
interests thatjust-so-happen to be the largestcontributors to D em ocratic
cam paigns.
T he N L R B issued its com plaint against B oeing one of our nation's
iconic com panies for allegedly transferring assem bly w ork on its
D ream liner 787 fleetof airplanes from Puget Sound,W ashington to N orth
C harleston,South C arolina.
B oeing m ade a legitim ate business decision to open a new plant,w ith new
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm /releases?C ontentR ecord_id=33ae54e2-49f5-4633-... 5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010152
Page 5 of 14
Press R eleases - U nited States Senator O rrin H atch

w orkers,in a new ,m ore business-friendly clim ate.It chose South C arolina,
in part,to avoid labor disputes and crippling strikes w hich had befallen the
com pany repeatedly over the past few years.
W hen B oeing first m ade this decision w ay back in 2009 ithad
experienced four labor strikes in 20 years.T he m ost recent w ork stoppage
a 58-day strike in 2008 costthe com pany $1.8 billion.
W as the decision to bring new w ork to South C arolina prudent business?
B oeing faces significant global com petition.T he French com pany A irbus is
anxious to take B oeing's business w ith the help and backing of the French
governm ent.
W as the decision good for A m erican w orkers? C learly it w as.In the current
m arketplace m any of B oeing's com petitors m ight have considered m oving
jobs overseas.Instead of follow ing that course,B oeing saved A m erican
jobs.
T he Presidentlikes to talk about jobs thathe has created and saved.
W ell,M r.President,not a single job union or non-union w as lost in
the State of W ashington as a result of B oeing's decision.In fact,over 2,000
new jobs have been created in Puget Sound since the com pany's
announcem ent to begin new w ork at the new facility.T his is not to m ention
South C arolina,w here hundreds of new jobs w ere created.A dded jobs in
W ashington plus added jobs in South C arolina sounds like a w in-w in for
A m erican w orkers to m e.
So,yes,B oeing's decision to build its new plant in South C arolina w as good
for just about everybody.Y et,w ithout asserting any evidence of anti-union
anim us on the part of B oeing or of an adverse im pact on union w orkers
exercising their legal rights,the N L R B filed its com plaint and has sought to
step in and m ake B oeing's business decisions for them .
A s South C arolina G overnor N ikki H aley described it in an A pril 26 W all
Street Journal editorial,the excitem ent in South C arolina turned to gloom for
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.
G overnor H aley should be applauded for calling the N L R B 's decision for
w hatit is a hand w rapped present to B ig L abor,courtesy of their friends
in the federal bureaucracy and the A dm inistration.

L et's take a look at the N L R B 's com plaint for a m om ent.First,let's
consider the tim ing of the com plaint.It is highly suspect if you ask m e.
T he B oeing C om plaint com es just a few short m onths before the new South
NLRB-FOIA-00010153
Page 6 of 14
C arolina facility w as scheduled to open in July,and w ellafter m ost of the
construction w as com pleted and the new w orkers w ere hired.In other
w ords,after m ost of B oeing's substantialinvestm ents had been m ade,the
heavy hand ofthe federalbureaucracy intervened to dictate thatits business
decision m ustbe reversed.
In its A pril21 editorial,the W allStreetJournaldescribes the B oeing
C om plaint saying "after 17 m onths and $2 billion,the N L R B sandbags
B oeing." T he editorialcontinued:"T here are plentifullegalprecedents that
give business the rightto locate operations in R ightto W ork states.T hat
righthas created healthy com petition am ong states and kepttens ofm illions
ofjobs in A m erica rather than overseas."
A n opinion editorialby Steven Pearlstein in the A pril26 W ashington Post is
even m ore telling.A lthough M r.Pearlstein w as,not unexpectedly,
som ew hat supportive of B ig L abor and the N L R B 's actions in this case,he
nevertheless acknow ledged that"U N the agency prevails and is able to force
B oeing to open an additionalproduction line for its new 787 D ream liner in
Seattle,itcould finally puta brake on the steady flow ofm anufacturing jobs
to rightto w ork states in the South."
Pearlstein hits it on the head here.T he decision to file this com plaint is an
attack on business-friendly states thatare attracting com panies and creating
jobs.Itis an effortby W ashington D em ocrats and career bureaucrats to
force unionism on the entire country.
Y et in m y view Pearlstein does not adequately state the radicalism of the
N L R B 's position.
T he factis thatifthe N L R B doing the bidding ofthe International
A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers prevails here,it w ill
give them the right to dictate business location decisions everyw here
even in non-R ight-to-W ork states.
T here is a greatdealofm isinform ation com ing from those w ho supportthe
N L R B 's actions.
In his article,Pearlstein inaccurately describes B oeing's new m anufacturing
facility in South C arolina as a run-aw ay shop.
B oeing had no legalobligation to locate any and allnew w ork in Puget
Sound.It w as not obligated under any collective bargaining agreem ent to
keep the w ork there.It sim ply chose to locate new w ork and new expansion
in a business-friendly,R ight-to-W ork state.Is thata run-aw ay shop? I think
not.
A pparently,the N L R B agrees w ith m e,because the C om plaint does not
allege that this w as a classic run-aw ay shop.In those situations,bargaining
unitw ork thatis contractually obligated to be perform ed by m em bers ofthe
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm /releases?C ontentR ecord_id=33ae54e2-49f5-4633-... 5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010154
Press R eleases - U nited States Senator O n -in H atch
Page 7 of 14
union is shut dow n unilaterally by m anagem ent.E m ployees are laid off and
the com pany stealthily slips out of tow n w ith little or no notice,only to
reopen at a new location to perform the exact sam e w ork on a union-free
basis.
T he N L R B m akes no such allegations here because that's not w hat happened
in this case.Instead,the C om plaint falls back on the broad,catch-all
argum ent that B oeing's actions w ere inherently destructive of [union
w orkers'] Section 7 rights,referring to the rights protected by Section 7 of
the N ational L abor R elations A ct,w hich,in this case,m eans the right to
strike.
If that theory w ere to apply to all cases like this one,if com panies cannot
factor labor conditions into decisions regarding new operations w ithoutit
being inherently destructive of Section 7 rights,there is no logical end to
w hat private decisions can be overruled by the N L R B .
Fortunately,the legal precedents dealing w ith this type of decision do not
support the A cting G eneral C ounsel's interpretation in the B oeing
C om plaint.T he cases cited in the C om plaint are all distinguishable.N ot
one of them deals w ith fact patterns involving new w ork,because there's
nothing unlaw ful about opening a new facility to perform new w ork that is
not obligated under an existing collective bargaining agreem ent.
Put sim ply,this is just another effort on the part of the union-packed O bam a
N L R B to undo years of legal precedentto satisfy B ig L abor.
If B oeing's actions are inherently destructive of the union's rights,w here is
the anti-union discrim ination? O nce again,M r.President,not a single union
w orker lost a job,or even lost an hour of w ork as a result of B oeing's
business decision.
L et's be perfectly clear: B oeing w orkers in the State of W ashington actually
G A IN E D N E W W O R K A N D G A IN E D 2,000 N E W JO B S follow ing the
decision in 2009.T hose jobs are am ong the best paid in A m erica.
D oes that sound like anti-union discrim ination?
T his w as not a stealth m ove in the dark of night; no one w as surprised or
caught off guard.T he M achinists'union knew that B oeing w as building a
new facility in South C arolina.B oeing had even discussed the new location
w ith them .W orkers knew about B oeing's plans as w ell.So,too,did the
N LR B .
B ut before issuing his com plaint,the A cting G eneral C ounsel stew ed for 17
m onths,w hile new facilities w ere being constructed in South C arolina at the
cost of billions of dollars and w orkers w ere hired to run the assem bly lines.
Itgoes w ithoutsaying that,if South C arolina w orkers w anted a union they,
NLRB-FOIA-00010155
Page 8 of 14
like any other private sector em ployees in South C arolina or any other state,
could file a petition w ith the N L R B for a union representation election.
T here w as no evidence of anti-union discrim ination by B oeing to any union
petition or union representation election.
B ut and I can'tstress this enough ,the m ostim portantfactor is thatthe
w ork in South C arolina w as new w ork,w hich B oeing w as not obligated to
perform in the State ofW ashington under its collective bargaining
agreem ent.
B oeing sim ply decided,for sound business reasons to open a new facility to
perform new w ork in a business-friendly state.T his is som ething businesses
do allthe tim e.
T hat is,they used to do it allthe tim e,before President O bam a's A cting
G eneralC ounsel,and the m ightofthe federalbureaucracy under the heavy-
handed controlof B ig L abor,decided to step in to interfere w ith B oeing's
decision.If this com plaint is upheld and this interpretation becom es the new
status quo,w ho know s how it w illim pact businesses in the future?
E very citizen in South C arolina,and every M em ber of C ongress
R epublican or D em ocrat ought to be outraged by the N L R B 's action.T o
borrow from Frank Sinatra,ifthey can do itthere,they can do itanyw here.
Ifthe N L R B can do this in South C arolina,disrupting business and killing
jobs,itcan happen anyw here,including U tah or any other R ight-to-W ork
state.It can happen even in non-R ight-to-W ork states as w ell.
But,the m ostappalling partaboutthis com plaint,M r.President,is notthe
N L R B 's borderline frivolous interpretation of the law .N o,it's the rem edies
the agency is seeking.
A fter asserting thatBoeing unlaw fully transferred bargaining unitw ork to
South C arolina,the A cting G eneralC ounsel a career N L R B bureaucrat
w ho,throughouthis governm entlegalcareer,has never been responsible for
m aking a single entrepreneurialdecision soughtan order stipulating that
B oeing's w ork on the 787 D ream liner could not be perform ed in South
C arolina and w ould have to be m oved to the State ofW ashington.
A s is typicalin these cases,the B oeing C om plaint w illsurely be subject to
lengthy litigation w hile B oeing's foreign com petitors eagerly seek to
supplant B oeing's business orders.E ven if B oeing ultim ately prevails in the
litigation battle,it could lose the business w ar to fierce globalcom petition.
T he M achinists know that,and so does the N L R B .
M ightI rem ind the supporters ofthe N L R B that,justice delayed is justice
denied.A nd here,the longer the w heels of justice turn,the w orse it is for
B oeing's business,and the w orse it is for A m erican jobs and prosperity.
http://hatch.senate.gov/pub lic/index.c fm /releases?C ontentR ecord_id=33ae54e2-49f5-4633 -...5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010156
Page 9 of 14
D elay does not favor B oeing,but it plays right into the hands of its global
com petitors,as w ellas the M achinists union and President O bam a's A cting
G eneralC ounselat the N L R B ,w ho,it seem s,w ould force the com pany into
accepting a settlem ent that cem ents an untenable business decision in law .
T his is no less than econom ic w arfare being w aged by the N L R B on behalf
of President O bam a's friends the labor unions against B oeing,against
the w orkers in South C arolina and allSouth C arolinians,and againstthe 22
R ight to W ork states across the country.In the end,it is econom ic w arfare
by the O bam a A dm inistration againstallbusiness-friendly states and against
capitalism and free enterprise everyw here.
I'm not the only one saying this.I note,for exam ple,that the A ttorneys
G eneralin nine states across the country N evada,V irginia,T exas,
G eorgia,A rizona,O klahom a,A labam a,Florida,and South C arolina
have w ritten to M r.Solom on asking thatthe B oeing C om plaintbe
w ithdraw n.
Their A pril28 letter states:This com plaintrepresents an assaultupon the
constitutionalrightoffree speech,and the ability ofour states to create jobs
and recruit industry....T he only justification for the N L R B 's unprecedented
retaliatory action is to aid union survival.Y our action seriously underm ines
our citizens'right to w ork as w ellas their ability to com pete globally.
T herefore,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.
E ditorials from new spapers across the country have criticized the B oeing
C om plaint.E ven the Seattle T im es w rote in an A pril22nd editorial: "T his
page regretted B oeing's decision,but has never thought of it as som ething
that could be,or should be,reversed by the federalgovernm ent." T he
article continues,saying that"the N ationalLabor R elations Board has
labeled B oeing's decision an unfair labor practice,and is asking a federal
courtto order the line to be m oved to W ashington...w e w ould celebrate the
day B oeing decided to do that but itis B oeing's decision."
L ater the sam e editorialconcluded,"M lle com pany has the rightto build
assem bly plants.Itcan build them in South C arolina or in A fghanistan ifit
likes.Its decision m ay be unw ise,but it is B oeing's."
T hese sam e sentim ents w ere expressed in the President's hom etow n
new spaper.A C hicago T ribune editorialon A pril22,described the N L R B
A cting G eneralC ounsel's actions a "gross intrusion."
T he editorialcontinued,"B oeing,the C hicago-based aviation com pany,
already has one governm ent-induced headache.Its m ain rival,A irbus SA S,
has received from E uropean nations about$20 billion in subsidies thatare
prohibited by internationaltrade agreem ents.T hatis challenging enough for
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm /releases?C ontentR ecord_id=33ae54e2 -49f5-4633-... 5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010157
Page 10 of 14
B oeing as it tries to com pete in an international m arket.B ut w hen the U .S.
governm ent tries to dictate w here B oeing can do business..,that's even
harder to stom ach."
T he T ribune editorial concluded,"[t]he disastrous,unintended m essage to a
m ajor U .S.em ployer: K eep your m outh shut and find another country to do
business."
T he D etroit N ew s has the President and his pro-union adm inistration
pegged.A bout this decision,the editors w rote,"President B arack O bam a
has m ade conciliatory sounds seeking to reassure business,but the actions of
the N L R B illustrate the real face of his adm inistration.C ongress ought to
hold hearings on reining in the N L R B ."
So if the N L R B 's C om plaint is so transparently aw ful,w hat is this all about?
L et's see.
A n unfair decision com es late in the gam e.It threatens to destroy rather than
create jobs.A nd it is based on specious legalreasoning.
R est assured,the issue is not jobs.T he issue is union jobs.
A nd the issue is not better pay for w orkers.T he issue is about m oney in the
union coffers.
A nd ultim ately,the issue is about the 2012 elections,because m oney in
union coffers m eans m oney for D em ocratic candidates.
T he InternationalA ssociation of M achinists union is im portantto President
O bam a.It endorsed him and contributed substantial resources to his
cam paign.A nd w hile President O bam a could not deliver on such legislative
initiatives as the E m ployee Free C hoice A ct,he appears determ ined that
every lever of governm ent

especially at the N ational L abor R elations
B oard w ill be turned in the U nion's favor.
T he contem pt for the A m erican people on display in this decision is
astounding.
T he President and congressional D em ocrats w ere unable to enact the
E m ployee Free C hoice A ct even w ith superm ajorities in C ongress.
B ut not to w orry.Just have som e bureaucrat do it.
K eep this episode in m ind the next tim e you hear progressives talk about the
need for enlightened adm inistration.
K eep it in m ind w hen you hear progressives claim that the President is just
NLRB-FOIA-00010158
Page 11 of 14
interested in doing w hatw orks,and thathe is not ideological.
Progressives ultim ately have little respect for the rule of law or the people
them selves.
For all of their talk about non-partisanship and doing w hat w orks,w hat they
really prom ote is a supposedly enlightened bureaucracy that in fact w ill push
liberal policies regardless of w hatthe people w ant.
Progressives are to non-partisanship as D onald T rum p is to subtlety.
U ltim ately,progressives are as partisan as they com e,and they push their
liberalism through a vast and perm anent bureaucracy that plods along day
after day largely out of sight of the A m erican people,w ho w ould never elect
representatives that w ould actually prom ote this leftist anti-business agenda.
W hen form er Speaker of the H ouse N ancy Pelosisaid that elections should
not m atter as m uch as they do,this is w hat she m eant.L iberalism should
advance no m atter w hat the people of this country actually desire.
A nd the foot soldiers that w ill advance the causes of progressive leftism day-
in-and-day-outare the unelected and largely unaccountable bureaucrats that
churn out page after page of regulation and infiltrate the decisionm aking
process of every business,no m atter how sm all the decision or how sm all
the business.
W hich brings m e to the N L R B 's A cting G eneral C ounsel.
H ow did he even w ind up in a position to cause this level of econom ic
m ayhem ?
N ot under the established procedure for appointing an interim G eneral
C ounselunder Section 3(d) of the N ationalL abor R elations A ct,w hich
provides very clearly as follow s: In case of vacancy in the office of the
G eneralC ounselthe P resident is authorized to designate the officer or
em ployee w ho shall act as G eneral C ounsel during such vacancy,but no
person or persons so designated shall so act (1) for m ore than forty days
w hen the C ongress is in session unless a nom ination to fill such vacancy
shall have been subm itted to the Senate,or (2) after the adjournm ent sine die
of the session of the Senate in w hich such nom ination w as subm itted.
President O bam a ignored the clearly established statutory procedure for
appointing an acting G eneral C ounsel under the N ational L abor R elations
A ct,and instead m ade M r.Solom on his personal A cting G eneral C ounsel
under the m ore generous term s of the federal V acancies A ct,w hich is
intended to apply to governm ent vacancies in general.
E ven if he is technically authorized to do so,the Presidentshould not use the
V acancies A ct to supplantor displace specific statutory procedures for
NLRB-FOIA-00010159
. .
Page 12 of 14
appointing federalem ployees to vacancies w here,as here under the N ational
L abor R elations A ct,the organic law is perfectly clear as to the intended
process.
W hy did PresidentO bam a m ake the appointm entunder the V acancies A ct
rather than follow the m ore preferred and traditionalprocedure provided
under the N L R A ? T he answ er is pretty sim ple:
U nder the V acancies A ct,M r.Solom on is allow ed to stay in the job in an
acting capacity,w ithoutSenate approval,for an initial210 days rather
than the 40 days provided under the N L R A and then be reappointed again
for another 210 days,and a third tim e for yetanother 210 days,untilthe end
ofPresidentO bam a's term .
T his is yetanother exam ple ofthe Presidentend-running the law in order to
ensconce in office individuals w ho w ould have a difficult tim e surviving the
constitutionally required confirm ation process,a process thatensures the
people and their representatives have som e m eaningfuloversight of the
appointee.
So w hy did no one com plain about this appointm ent before now ? I suppose
som e should have.
I suppose that,after the battle over the nom ination ofA FL -C IO and SE IU
A ssociate C ounselC raig B ecker to the N L R B ,m any w ere convinced that
they could do a lot w orse than having a career N L R B civilservant serve as
acting G eneralC ounsel.
I'm not so sure anyone feels that w ay now .In fact,in light of his recent
actions,including the B oeing C om plaint,it's hard to conceive of a w orse
choice for acting G eneralC ounsel.
T hat decision should be revisited.T hat's w hy I am w riting to President
O bam a to requestthathe w ithdraw his appointm entofM r.Solom on.
A nd,as far as PresidentO bam a's nom ination ofM r.Solom on for a fullterm
as G eneralC ounselis concerned,it is difficult to im agine how M r.Solom on
could ever be confirm ed by the Senate in view of his actions w hile serving
as A cting G eneralC ounsel.
G overnm ent actions like the ones w e have seen w ith the B oeing C om plaint
are debilitating to our econom y ata tim e w hen w e are struggling to recover
from one of the N ation's w orst recessions since the G reat D epression.Such
bureaucratic decisions costjobs ata tim e w hen w e are struggling to reduce
unem ploym ent.T hey delay business decision m aking and interfere w ith
com petition.T hey underm ine business confidence in governm ent.
W hy should com panies investin expanding business in the U nited States if,
w ith the drop ofthe hat,a federalbureaucratcan sim ply reverse that
NLRB-FOIA-00010160
Page 13 of 14
decision and destroy thatinvestm ent?
A t this point,w e are left scratching our heads.W hy w ould the A cting
G eneralC ounseldo this?
U nfortunately,the answ er appears to be thatthe decision to issue the
com plaint w as a politicalone designed to placate an im portant politicalally
of the President's organized labor.T hat answ er,w hile unacceptable,is
the only logicalone.
A s the A pril21stW allStreetJournalconcluded,"[b]eyond labor politics,
the N L R B 's ruling w ould set a terrible precedent for the flow of jobs and
investm ents w ithin the U nited States.It w ould essentially give labor a veto
over m anagem entdecisions aboutw here to build future plants."
T hatm ustnever be allow ed to happen.T he N L R B should w ithdraw the
B oeing C om plaint.
###
Perm alink:http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm /2011/5/hatch-blasts-
dangerous-nlrb-boeing-decision-calls-on-president-to-w ithdraw -nom ination-
of-general-counsel
Like
:id B O O K M A R K leigj i7 ...;
B row se by: maY
A pErri
E :....
92i
H A T C H H O N O R S PR E SID E N T R E A G A N 'S JU D IC IA L
05/06/11 L E G A C Y ,C O M M IT M E N T T O C O N ST IT U T IO N IN
SPE E C H T H IS M O R N IN G
05/06/11 C urrentrecord
05/06/11 H atch,C am p Introduce B icam eralJobs A ct
H atch V otes A gainst M cC onnellN om ination to U .S.D istrict
05/04/11
C ourt
05/04/11
H atch C ongratulates PrudentialSpirit of C om m unity A w ard
W inners From U tah
H atch says Interior D epartm ent M oving Forw ard W ith
05/04/11
G rey W olf D elisting D oesn't G o Far E nough,Ignores K ey
Parts of U tah W here W olf Populations E xist
05/04/11 H atch,C oburn,G roup of Senators Introduce L egislation
http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm /releases?C ontentR ecordid=33ae54e2-49f5-4633-.. . 5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010161
Page 14 of 14
Preventing FederalFunding of A bortion in O bam aC are
05/04/11
H earing on E xam ining FederalB udget E nforcem ent
M echanism s
05/03/11
H atch,G O P Senators protest FederalG overnm ent's
C om plaint A gainst B oeing 4'1
05/03/11
H atch U nveils L egislation R olling B ack O nerous M edicaid
R equirem ents that are B ankrupting States
05/03/11
H atch: M ore than H alf of U .S.H ouseholds did N ot Pay A ny
Incom e T ax in 2009
05/03/11
E xam ining B urdens & B enefits of D istribution w ith the U .S.
T ax C ode
05/01/11
H atch Statem ent on the D eath of O sam a bin L aden
NLRB-FOIA-00010162
P ag e 1 o f 2
From :
Farrell,Ellen
S ent:
Thursday, M ay 12, 2011 2:01 P M
To:
K earney,B arry J.; S ophir,Jaym e; S zapiro,M iriam ; W illen,D ebra L
S ubject: R E : B oeing - D R A FT N otice language
R ich sent this draft.Isaid Ithink

Exemption 5
Ellen
E llen F arrell
202-273-3810
E llen.F arrell@ nlrb.gov
From : A hearn,R ichard L.
S ent: Thursday, M ay 12, 2011 1:38 P M
To: Farrell,E llen
S ubject: FW : B oeing - D R A FT N otice language
From : Finch,P eter G .
S ent: Thursday, M ay 12, 2011 10:19 A M
To: A hearn,R ichard L.; P om erantz,A nne; A nzalone,M ara-Louise
S ubject: FW : B oeing - D R A FT N otice language
P er th e co llective c h a n g e s to th e o rig in a l: ,
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010163
P age 2 of 2
as
Exemption 5
P eter G .Finch,Field A ttorney
N ationalLabor R elations B oard - R egion 19
2948 Jackson FederalB uilding
915 Second A venue
Seattle,W ashington 98174
Tel.: 206.220.6285
Fax: 206.220.6305
e-m ail: peter.finch@ nlrb.gov
5/12/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010164
P ag e 1 o f 2
From :
M attina, C eleste J.
S ent:
T hursday, M ay 05, 201112:07 P M
To:
S chiff, R obert; G arza, Jose; C leeland, N ancy; A bruzzo, Jennifer; S olom on, L afe E .
C c:
K earney, B arry J.
S u b ject:
F W : B oeing -- revised draft response to state A G s
A ttach m en ts: A G s letter.pdf; G C R esponse to S tate A G 's.doc
B arry and his people drafted a very good response. I m ade som e m inor edits; I
Exemption 5
S en t: W ednesday, M ay 04, 2011 2:28 P M
T o : S olom on, L afe E .; M attina, C eleste).
S u b ject: F W : B oeing -- revised draft response to state A G s
D raft response from you to S tate A G s
F ro m : W illen, D ebra L
T o : K earney, B arry J.; S ophir, Jaym e; F arrell, E llen; S zapiro, M iriam
C c: D odds, A m y L .
S u b ject: R E : B oeing -- revised draft response to state A G s
clean draft and A G s'letter attached
T o : S ophir, Jaym e; F arrell, E llen; W illen, D ebra L ; S zapiro, M iriam
I agree w ith all the revisions. P lease send m e a clean draft along w ith the A G letter to send on to L afe
T o : F arrell, E llen; K earney, B arry J.; W illen, D ebra L ; S zapiro, M iriam
N otw ithstanding that this case is about retaliation for striking in other states, they seem t
Exemption 5
they're saying, E llen's m odification is definitely better.
ut, regardless of w hat
5/5/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010165
P age 2 of2
From : Farrell,Ellen
S en t: W ednesday,M ay 04,2011 12:07 P M
To: K earney,B arry J.; W illen,D ebra L; Sophir,Jaym e; Szapiro,M iriam
C c: D odds,A m y L.
S u b ject: FW : B oeing -- revised draft response to state A G s
See m y m odification...
Exemption 5
Ellen
E llen F arrell
D eputy A ssociate G eneralC ounsel
D ivision of A dvice,N LR B
202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@ nlrb.gov
From : Sophir,Jaym e
S en t: W ednesday,M ay 04,2011 11:33 A M
To: K earney,B arry J.; Farrell,Ellen; Szapiro,M iriam ; W illen,D ebra L
S u b ject: FW : B oeing -- revised draft response to state A G s
Exemption 5
From : W illen,D ebra L
S en t: W ednesday,M ay 04,2011 10:58 A M
To: K earney,B arry J.; Farrell,Ellen; Sophir,Jaym e; Szapiro,M iriam
S u b ject: B oeing -- revised draft response to state A G s
A s B arry requested,I've incorporated his changes and am attaching the new version along w ith the A G 's letter.
Jaym e -- Ihave not addressed your concern -- please discuss it w ith B arry and let m e know if w hat you allw ant
m e to do.
Thanks,D eb
5/5/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010166
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010167
-2-
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010168
-3-
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010169
..
P ag e I o f I
From :
S ophir, Jaym e
S ent:
W ednesday, M ay 04, 201112:18 P M
To:
F arrell, E llen; K earney, B arry J.; W illen, D ebra L ; S zapiro, M iriam
C c:
D odds, A m y L .
N otw ithstanding that this case is about retaliation for striking in other states, they seem t
B ut, regardless of w hat
Exemption 5
they're saying, E llen's m odification is definitely better.
F ro m : Farrell, E llen
T o : K earney, B arry J.; W illen, D ebra L ; S ophir, Jaym e; S zapiro, M iriam
S u b ject: F W : B oeing -- revised draft response to state A G s
S ee m y m odification...
Exemption 5
E llen
E llen F arrell
202-273-3810
E llen.F arrell@ nlrb.gov
S en t: W ednesday, M ay 04, 2011 11:33 A M
T o : K earney, B arry J.; F arrell, E llen; S zapiro, M iriam ; W illen, D ebra L
C c: D odds,A m y L .
S ubject: FW : B oeing -- revised d raft response to state A G s
Exemption 5
F ro m : W illen, D ebra L
S en t: W ednesday, M ay 04, 2011 10:58 A M
T o : K earney, B arry J.; F arrell, E llen; S ophir, Jaym e; S zapiro, M iriam
S u b ject: B oeing -- revised draft response to state A G s
A s B arry requested, I've incorporated his changes and am attaching the new version along w ith the A G 's letter.
Jaym e -- I have not addressed your concern -- please discuss it w ith B arry and let m e know if w hat you all w ant
m e to do.
T hanks, D eb
5/4/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010170
i,
P age 1 of1
K earney,B arry J.
From :
W illen,D ebra L
Sent:
W ednesday,M ay 04,201112:14 P M
T o:
Szapiro,M iriam ; Farrell,Ellen; K earney,B arry J.; Sophir,Jaym e
C c:
D odds,A m y L.
Subject: R E: B oeing -- revised draft response to state A G s
Fine by m e too.
From : Szapiro,M iriam
S ent: W ednesday,M ay 04,2011 12:10 P M
To: Farrell,Ellen; K earney,B arry J.; W illen,D ebra L; Sophir,Jaym e
S ubject: R E: B oeing -- revised draft response to state A G s
I like Jaym e's point and Ellen's m odification; it's a good addition.
From : Farrell,Ellen
S ent: W ednesday,M ay 04,2011 12:07 P M
To: K earney,B arry J.; W illen,D ebra L; Sophir,Jaym e; Szapiro,M iriam
Subject: FW : B oeing -- revised draft response to state A G s
See m y m odification T
Exemption 5
Ellen
E llen F arrell
D eputy A ssociate G eneralC ounsel
D ivision of A dvice,N LR B
202-273-3810
E llen.Farrell@ nlrb.gov
'1
From : Sophir,Jaym e
S ent: W ed n esd ay, M ay 04, 2011 11:33 A M
To: K earney,B arry J.; Farrell,Ellen; Szapiro,M iriam ; W illen,D ebra L
Subject: FW : B oeing -- revised draft response to state A G s
Exemption 5
From : W illen,D ebra L
S ent: W ednesday,M ay 04,2011 10:58 A M
To: K earney,B arry J.; Farrell,Ellen; Sophir,Jaym e; Szapiro,M iriam
S ubject: B oeing -- revised draft response to state A G s
A s B arry requested, I've incorporated his changes and am attaching the new version along w ith the A G 's letter.
Jaym e -- Ihave not addressed your concern -- please discuss it w ith B arry and let m e know if w hat you allw ant m e to do.
Thanks,D eb
5/4/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010171
Statem ent
of
T he H onorable J.M ichaelL uttig
E xecutive V ice President and G eneralC ounsel
T he B oeing C om pany
before
T he C om m ittee on H ealth,E ducation,L abor and Pensions
U nited States Senate
M ay 12,2011
T hank you C hairm an H arkin,R anking M em ber E nziand M em bers of the Senate
C om m ittee on H ealth,E ducation,L abor and Pensions,for inviting m e to testify before the
C om m ittee today.
T he com plaint filed by A cting G eneralC ounselL afe Solom on of the N ationalL abor
R elations B oard ("N L R B ") against "T he B oeing C om pany" that is at issue before the C om m ittee
arises from B oeing's selection of N orth C harleston,South C arolina,as its location for a second
finalassem bly facility for the 787 D ream liner.T he D ream liner is B oeing's revolutionary new
w ide-body com m ercialairplane that w illbe significantly m ore energy efficient than com parably
sized airplanes,w ith advanced electric system s.T he assem bly of the 787 began (and continues)
in E verett,W ashington,at the site w here B oeing builds its other tw in-aisle com m ercialairplanes,
including the 747 and the 777.In response to extraordinary custom er dem and for the 787,
B oeing decided in 2008 to create significant new production capacity by-establishing a second
787 assem bly line.
T he decision to place the second line in N orth C harleston w as one of the m ore im portant
decisions in B oeing's recent history,and w as m ade only after extensive deliberation by the
C om pany's senior m anagem ent.B oeing w as predisposed to place the second assem bly line in
iE verett,w here the C om pany could draw upon a pre-existing,skilled w ork force and benefit from
the low er construction costs of expanding its existing footprint.B ut there w ere also good
reasons to consider locating the second assem bly line in N orth C harleston.South C arolina offers
V an exceptionalbusiness environm ent for m anufacturing com panies,w hich in this case included a
significant package of financialincentives in its effort to persuade B oeing to build the new line
there.Further,N orth C harleston w ould provide B oeing,for the first tim e,w ith desirable
geographicaldiversity for its com m ercialairplanes operations.B oeing's desire to protect the
v future stability of the D ream liner's globalproduction system w as also a significant factor in its
decision-m aking process.A n InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers
("JA M ") strike in 2008 shut dow n 787 production,costing the C om pany m ore than a billion
NLRB-FOIA-00010172
dollars and dam aging Boeing's reputation for reliability w ith its airline custom ers,suppliers,and
investors.
B oeing's collective bargaining agreem entw ith IA M authorizes itto place w ork at
locations of its choosing.T he C om pany,how ever,recognized the potentialadvantages of
locating the second line in Everettand invited the IA M to discuss the issue during the tim e that
B oeing w as evaluating severalkey issues thatw ould ultim ately fram e the business decision as to
w here to place the second line.B oeing's intense discussions w ith the JA M continued for m ore
than a m onth,and-focused on Boeing's interestin obtaining a long-term contract,w ith a no-
strike clause,w hich w ould ensure future production stability for the 787.T he IA M ,how ever,
w ould notagree to a long-term extension ofthe collective bargaining agreem entunless B oeing
w ould agree to m aterialchanges in the contract,including significantguaranteed w age and
benefitincreases,an assurance thatallfuture com m ercialaircraftw ork be placed in the Puget
Sound area,and a com m itm entthatBoeing w ould rem ain neutralin future JA M organizing
efforts in other parts ofthe country.T hose conditions w ere unacceptable to B oeing.A tabout
the sam e tim e thatthe IA M provided Boeing w ith its fm alposition,South C arolina confirm ed
B oeing's eligibility for severalhundred m illion dollars in incentives w ere itto locate its second
line in N orth C harleston.W eighing the business case presented by the tw o alternatives,B oeing
decided to build the second line in N orth C harleston.
C ontrary to w hatA cting G eneralC ounselSolom on's com plaintasserts,B oeing's conduct
in selecting South C arolina for the second line did notviolate the N LR A for tw o independently
sufficientreasons.First,the law unam biguously requires a show ing ofan adverse em ploym ent
action caused by the challenged action.A gain contrary to w hatthe A cting G eneralC ounselsays
in the com plaint,B oeing's decision concerned the placem ent of new w ork,notthe m ovem entof
existing w ork to N orth C harleston.N o IA M m em ber in PugetSound w as (or w illbe)laid off,or
saw (or w illsee)a reduction in his or her benefits,as a resultofthe C om pany's decision.A nd
B oeing's rightto place new production capacity ata location ofits choosing is notonly
perm issible under settled Board doctrine;itis expressly authorized by B oeing's collective
bargaining agreem entw ith the JA M ,and has been for over 45 years.Far from any IA M m em ber
suffering an adverse em ploym entaction from B oeing's decision to place the second line in
C harleston,Boeing has already hired new em ployees and plans to hire additionalem ployees in
the PugetSound area as the rate ofproduction ofthe 787 and other airplanes increases over tim e.
The new em ployees w illbecom e m em bers ofthe IA M bargaining unitin the PugetSound area.
,T hat even m ore IA M em ployees m ighthave been hired ifallproduction w ere in Everettcould
V notpossibly resultin an adverse em ploym entaction w ith respectto any currentIA M m em ber.
Second,even ifthe Board w ere to conclude contrary to clear precedentand supported
by none thatlocating the second 787 finalassem bly line in N orth C harleston som ehow resulted
in an adverse em ploym entaction,the Board w ould stillbe required to establish thatBoeing's
actions w ere "inherently destructive" ofprotected activity,or thatBoeing w as m otivated by anti-
union anim us.N either conclusion can plausibly be draw n from the facts.B oeing w as
predisposed to place the second line in E verett,and itw ould have done so had the business case
NLRB-FOIA-00010173
been superior (or atleastequal)to locating the new facility in N orth C harleston.W hile B oeing
did consider the need for future 787 production stability in m aking its decision,thatw as only one
factor in the decision process.E ven ifanalyzed in isolation (w hich is certainly notthe test),that
business consideration w as entirely consistentw ith settled precedent.The Board and the
Suprem e C ourthave long held thatan em ployer is fully entitled to m ake business decisions that
m ay blunt the effectiveness of future strikes.A nd,as B oeing's choice of production sites is
explicitly allow ed by the IA M 's collective bargaining agreem ent,thatconsequence cannot
reasonably be view ed as inherently destructive tow ard the U nion.
N or can itbe credibly claim ed thatB oeing's actions and business decisions show
anything resem bling anti-union anim us.Q uite the contrary:T he placem entofthe 787 second
line w as a m ulti-billion-dollar decision one thatB oeing m ustlive w ith for decades to com e.
T he decision w as abouteconom ic reality and the future ofthe C om pany.Indeed,the C om pany's
decision to negotiate w ith the IA M as partofthe decision-m aking process a step the C om pany
w as notrequired to take under its collective bargaining agreem ent as w ellas Boeing's plan to
expand w ork for IA M m em bers in the PugetSound area show s thatBoeing w as and is trying to
w ork w ith the IA M ,notto punish it,as the com plaintincorrectly alleges.
For these reasons,w hich are discussed in detailbelow ,the unfair labor practices alleged
in the com plaintm ake no sense on the facts and constitute a sw eeping departure from clearly
established law .The theory espoused by the com plaintis tantam ountto a claim thatno
A m erican corporation m ay perm issibly decide to locate future w ork atany location other than
the one w here union w ork is currently being perform ed,and never in a R ight-to-W ork state.
I.
A m ong other products,Boeing m akes large jetairplanes for custom ers around the w orld.
B oeing is the N ation's largestexporter w ith $29 billion in overseas sales in 2009.
B oeing's latestgeneration ofcom m ercialaircraftis the 787 D ream liner.B uiltw ith
lightw eightcom posite m aterials,the 787 is one ofthe m ostfuel-efficient,technologically
advanced passenger airplanes in the w orld.In addition to novelm aterials and technologies,the
787 is m anufactured through a new production process involving a globalsupply chain.In 2003,
w hen selecting the site for the firstD ream liner finalassem bly line,B oeing considered several
possibilities.In addition to E verett,W ashington,w here the firstline ultim ately w as placed,
Boeing seriously considered other locations,including the C harleston,South C arolina area.In
choosing the site for finalassem bly,B oeing considered a variety offactors,including
construction costs,labor costs,supply chain logistics,and the overallbusiness clim ate.A fter
w eighing these factors carefully,Boeing chose Everett,and began operation ofthe first
D ream liner finalassem bly line there in 2007.
T he 787 becam e the fastest-selling airplane in aviation history.Since the 787 w as first
announced,custom ers have placed orders for alm ost850 airplanes valued ata listprice ofup to
NLRB-FOIA-00010174
$150 billion.T his has produced a backlog of orders extending through approxim ately 2020.A t
the sam e tim e,Boeing has faced challenges in the 787 program thathave resulted in significant
delays in the airplane's delivery.T o execute on its large backlog for the 787,and in an attem pt
to m itigate the risk ofadditionaldelays to its custom ers,B oeing decided in 2008 to significantly
expand 787 production capacity.T o thatend,itdecided to establish a second fm alassem bly
line.
A s ithad done w hen establishing the firstfinalassem bly facility,B oeing considered
m ultiple locations for the second line,including both R ight-to-W ork and non-R ight-to-W ork
States.A fter extensive study ofpotentialsites,the choice cam e dow n to the PugetSound area,
w here allofBoeing's com m ercialaircraftare currently assem bled,and N orth C harleston,w here
the aftand m id-body sections ofthe 787 are constructed and assem bled and w here,as a result,
Boeing had already established a significantm anufacturing footprint.
I,
In m aking its decision,B oeing considered a w ide range offactors designed to ensure the
long-term com petitiveness ofthe 787 program .In addition to construction and labor costs,
logistics,and generalbusiness clim ate,B oeing factored in the particular econom ic incentives
t/available in South C arolina,the benefits associated w ith geographic diversity in its fm al
assem bly capability,and its ability to m aintain the stability ofthe 787 production system in the
eventoffuture strikes.
B oeing's concern for production stability w as far from hypothetical.B oeing's w orkforce
in the PugetSound area is heavily unionized.T he IA M represents approxim ately 25,000 B oeing
em ployees in the PugetSound region and has represented Boeing's production and m aintenance
w orkers there since 1934.A llthe assem bly line w orkers at B oeing's various Puget Sound
facilities are represented by the JA M .The IA M has struck Boeing seven tim es atits Puget
Sound facilities since 1934,and four tim es since 1989.In 2008,w hen the IA M 's last collective
bargaining agreem entexpired,union m em bers including those assigned to the 787 production
line w enton strike for 58 days.
A tthe tim e ofthe 2008 strike,the D ream liner program w as already fifteen m onths behind
schedule and under severe stress,in significantpartbecause of"traveled w ork" from suppliers
w ork thatshould have been com pleted by suppliers before shipm ent,or w as com pleted
im properly,w hich Boeing then had to fix and address as an ongoing m atter w ith the challenged
suppliers.G iven the stress on the production system ,the 2008 strike had a cascading effect,
/delaying 787 construction and delivery far m ore than the 58-day duration ofthe strike.T he 2008
./strike also costB oeing $1.8 billion in lostrevenues thatyear,and decreased allaircraftdeliveries
by 105 for 2008.B oeing's airline custom ers w ere upset,and in som e cases publicly critical,
including suggesting thatthe lack ofproduction stability atBoeing could affectfuture orders.
For exam ple,V irgin Blue G roup C EO and Boeing custom er R ichard Branson succinctly
described the consequences ofthe delay caused by the IA M strike as "catastrophic," and stated
that"ifthere's a risk offurther strikes in the future,he m ay notbuy Boeing again."' See D om inic
G ates,B oeing's top custom er predicts big production cuts, Seattle Tim es (Feb.6,2009).M r.
NLRB-FOIA-00010175
Branson explained the effectthe strike had on his airline because planes w ere notavailable:"It
w as a horrible m ess thatB oeing w as on strike.W e m essed up tens ofthousands ofpassengers
over C hristm as ....W e had to buy tickets on other airlines and scram ble to getseats w hich
w eren'tavailable." Id.; see also B illV irgin,B oeing,unions should listen to R ichard B ranson,
Seattle Post-Intelligencer (Feb.9,2009).
In assessing its options for the second finalassem bly line,B oeing w as legitim ately
concerned w ith,am ong other factors,the econom ic im pactofpotentialfuture JA M strikes,the
delivery delays thatm ightbe caused by such strikes,and the perceptions ofits com m ercial
airline custom ers thatcould affectfuture orders.
A .
In considering differentlocations for the additionalassem bly line (as w ellas sites for the
second line's com ponentand interior parts m anufacturing facilities),Boeing relied on its rightin
Section 21.7 of the collective bargaining agreem ent w ith the IA M .Section 21.7 has been in
place in every collective bargaining agreem entw ith the IA M for the last45 years,since atleast
1965.It gives B oeing the right to "designate the w ork to be perform ed by the C om pany and the
places w here itis to be perform ed" (em phasis added),w ithoutany obligation to bargain w ith the
IA M .
B oeing nevertheless negotiated w ith the IA M regarding placem entofa second line in
Puget Sound.B oeing recognized the benefits of locating the second line in the Puget Sound
area,w hich included a skilled w ork force,Boeing's deep roots in the area,and the low er
construction costs ofexpanding an existing footprint.N otw ithstanding the significantbusiness
clim ate,econom ic incentives,geographic diversity,and labor advantages associated w ith the
/potentialN orth C harleston location,B oeing believed the balance w ould tip in favor of E verett if,
V am ong other things,itcould stabilize 787 production w ith a longer-term collective bargaining
agreem entthatw ould preventstrikes for an extended period.Boeing also w anted to slow the
v grow th of future w age increases and benefit costs.A s the President and C E O of B oeing
C om m ercialA irplanes,Jim A lbaugh,said in a later interview ,his predisposition w as to locate
the expansion in PugetSound,notC harleston.
B oeing first m entioned the second line to the IA M in the sum m er of 2008.In June 2009,
B oeing notified the IA M thata decision on the placem entofthe second assem bly line w as
forthcom ing.T he IA M agreed to discuss the issue,and negotiations began in earnestthat
A ugust.R epresentatives of the IA M and B oeing m et seven tim es betw een A ugust 27 and
O ctober 21.Boeing m ade clear from the startthat,regardless ofthe outcom e,the issue needed to
be resolved by O ctober 15 because B oeing needed to startconstruction on the second line,
w hether in Everettor in N orth C harleston.
A tthe requestofthe IA M ,neither party took notes ofthe extensive discussions,butthe
JA M did subm ita w ritten offer to Boeing thatreflects the distance betw een the parties on key
issues.T he U nion w as w illing to agree to extend the existing collective bargaining agreem ent
NLRB-FOIA-00010176
only through 2020 (not2022 as B oeing w anted),butsetforth,am ong others,the follow ing
conditions:
B oeing w ould have to selectE verettas the site for the second 787 finalassem bly line.
B oeing w ould have to notify the U nion six m onths before m aking any decisions on
w here to place new production capacity for any "nextgeneration" product.Ifthe
parties did notreach agreem entatthe end ofthe six m onth negotiation period,the
IA M could term inate the collective bargaining agreem ent,relieving itofthe no-strike
obligation.
Boeing could notm ove any bargaining unitw ork currently being perform ed by JA M
m em bers or contractw ith a supplier to perform the sam e type ofw ork being
perform ed by IA M m em bers.
In addition,though notlisted in the w ritten setofconditions,the IA M 's negotiators
consistently insisted thatany agreem entw ould also require thatBoeing rem ain neutralin all
IA M organizing or decertification cam paigns.B oeing told the IA M thatitcould notacceptsuch
significantchanges to Section 21.7 and its rightto m ake m ajor entrepreneurial-leveldecisions.
T he IA M 's insistence on neutrality in organizing and decertification cam paigns w as also
identified early on as a roadblock to m oving forw ard.B utB oeing continued to negotiate w ith
the JA M ,hoping to reach a m utually acceptable agreem ent.A s B oeing C E O Jim M cN erney said
in a contem poraneous interview ,B oeing's goals rem ained production stability and a slow ing in
w age grow th.M r.M cN erney also said thatthe tone ofthe then-ongoing negotiations w as
constructive.
A s the O ctober 15 deadline for m aking the finaldecision approached,Boeing agreed to
an JA M requestfor a one-w eek extension ofthe deadline so thatthe U nion could subm itits "best
and fm aloffer." O n O ctober 20,the eve ofthe lastscheduled m eeting,B oeing's representatives
m ade specific suggestions aboutw hatthe C om pany w ould likely accept,so as to better inform
the IA M in preparing its proposal.A m ong other things,Boeing's representatives suggested that
the C om pany could accept(1)a guaranteed annualw age increase of2% ;(2)a costofliving
form ula of1.5% ;(3)costsharing ofincrease in health care costs;and (4)a 2% annualincrease in
pension benefits.Boeing's representatives stressed to their IA M counterparts thatthe C om pany
could notaccept"neutrality" or a "guarantee" to locate future w ork in the PugetSound area.
T he IA M 's finaloffer cam e the nextafternoon,O ctober 21.In exchange for extending
the existing contractto 2020 (again,not2022,as B oeing w anted),the JA M continued to dem and
that(1)existing bargaining unitw ork could notbe m oved;(2)Boeing w ould be precluded from
setting up additionalor "dual" sources for 787 com ponentproduction and support;and (3)the
JA M w ould have the rightto term inate the collective bargaining agreem entand strike ifnew
w ork w ere notplaced in the PugetSound area.Boeing's nationw ide neutrality in any future
union organizing cam paigns w as an "absolute necessity," according to the JA M .
NLRB-FOIA-00010177
T he IA M 's offer fellshorton other grounds as w ell.A m ong other things,the IA M
required three lum p-sum bonuses of$5,000 or 10 percentofearnings,w hichever w as greater,in
2009,2013,and 2016.It requested an annualpension increase of $2.50 per m onth for the life of
the agreem ent,as w ellas generalw age increases of3 percenton top ofcost-of-living
adjustm ents.
B .
B oeing m ade its decision concerning the placem entofthe second line in late O ctober,
2009.G iven its significance,the decision involved the m ost senior m em bers of m anagem ent
undertaking a thorough com parison ofthe business cases for each site Everettand N orth
C harleston.The C om pany's inability to reach agreem entw ith the IA M on a m utually agreeable
approach to ensure long-term production stability in Everettw as an im portantconsideration in
the discussion,and itm ade the overallbusiness case for N orth C harleston m ore persuasive,as
did the generalbusiness clim ate,the desire for geographicaldiversity in fm alassem bly,labor
costs,and South C arolina's w illingness to m ake available hundreds ofm illions ofdollars of
incentives.A fter considering those factors and others,the C om pany chose N orth C harleston.
B oeing publicly announced its decision on O ctober 28,2009.
Shortly after m aking its announcem ent,Boeing began to build the second assem bly line
/in N orth C harleston on an aggressive construction schedule,and to hire w orkers to staff it.T his
w as one ofthe m ostm assive construction projects in the country in recentyears.O n N ovem ber
6,2009,Boeing aw arded a contractto BE& K Building G roup and Turner C onstruction to
design,build,and deliver the 1.2 m illion square footN orth C harleston assem bly line facility,
w hich w ould include the finalassem bly line,a delivery center,a w elcom e center,a central
utilities building,and a supportbuilding.
Boeing estim ates thatithas com m itted over $1 billion to date to its N orth C harleston
operations.C onstruction on the second finalassem bly line is now virtually com plete.B oeing
expects to start787 production in N orth C harleston by July 2011,and to deliver the first
airplanes in 2012.W ellover 1,000 em ployees have already been hired to w ork in the N orth
C harleston finalassem bly facility and plans are in place to hire m ore in the nextfew m onths.A
large team ofm anagers and em ployees m any ofw hom have m oved to the N orth C harleston
area from other parts ofthe country have been w orking tirelessly to staffthe new facility.
C . -
In M arch 2010,follow ing a delay offive m onths after B oeing announced its decision,
and w ith construction in C harleston w ellunderw ay,the IA M filed an unfair labor practice charge
w ith the B oard.T he IA M alleged thatB oeing had, inter alia, violated Section 8(a)(3) by
"beginning the process oftransferring w ork ...to a new plantem ploying non-union w orkers in
retaliation for bargaining unitw orkers'protected concerted activity." In late 2010 and early
2011,B oeing representatives had discussions w ith N L R B officials,including A cting G eneral
C ounselL afe Solom on,aboutthe charge.A lthough B oeing believed ithad reached an
NLRB-FOIA-00010178
agreem entw ith Solom on to resolve the m atter,the A cting G eneralC ounselultim ately directed
thata com plaintbe issued.
O n A pril20,2011,the com plaintw as issued,charging thatB oeing had violated Section
8(a)(3) of the N ationalL abor R elations A ct.'T he com plaint focused on B oeing's allegedly
unlaw fulactions in deciding to place its second assem bly line in N orth C harleston,as opposed to
the PugetSound area,and in describing thatdecision to em ployees.A ccording to the com plaint,
Boeing actions w ere taken in retaliation for IA M -represented em ployees for having gone on
strike in 2008 and for having the continued ability to go on strike in the future.
The com plaintalleged thatBoeing had "decided to transfer" its second D ream liner
production line and its sourcing supply program "because [lA M -represented]em ployees assisted
and/or supported the U nion by, inter alio, engaging in the protected,concerted activity oflaw ful
strikes." See id.at 117-8.A ccording to the com plaint,these actions violated Sections 8(a)(3) of
the A ctby "discrim inating in regard to the hire or tenure or term s or conditions ofem ploym ent
ofits em ployees,thereby discouraging m em bership in a labor organization." See id.at 1110.
The com plaintfound the C om pany's actions "inherently destructive" ofem ployees'rights. See
id.at 11117-8. See id.at 1112. T he key rem edy soughtby A cting G eneralC ounselSolom on w as
"an O rder requiring [B oeing]to have the [IA M ]operate [B oeing's]second line of787
D ream liner aircraftassem bly production in the State ofW ashington." See id.at li13(a).
II.
Before exposing the fatallegaldefects ofthe com plaint,a correction ofthe factualerrors,
m ischaracterizations,and m isquotations upon w hich the com plaintis based is in order.
A .
A s an initialm atter,the com plaintrepeatedly alleges thatBoeing "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
(118(a)).
In fact,no w ork w as "rem oved" or "transferred" from E verett.T he second line for
the 787 is a new finalassem bly line.A s it did not previously exist in E verett or elsew here,
the second assem bly line could not have been "rem oved" from E verett,or "transferred"
1T he com plaint also claim ed that B oeing had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the N L R A ,alleging
the Boeing executives m ade "coercive" statem ents to IA M -represented em ployees,
threatening to rem ove w ork from the PugetSound area because em ployees had struck in the
past,and thatthe C om pany w ould m ove w ork in the eventoffuture strikes.
NLRB-FOIA-00010179
or otherw ise "m oved" to N orth C harleston.Sim ply put,the w ork that is and w illbe done
atBoeing's N orth C harleston fm alassem 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 ofthe IA M in the Puget
Sound area has losthis or her job,or otherw ise suffered any adverse em ploym entaction,as a
resultofthe placem entofthis new w ork in the State ofSouth C arolina.
The R egionalD irector,w hose office has been tasked w ith prosecuting this case,
understands that,and has accurately and publicly described the m atter.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 oininic G ates, M achinists F ile U nfair
Labor C harge A gainstB oeing over C harleston.Seattle Tim es, June 4,2010.
Since no w ork w as "transferred," N LR B officials now appear to be transform ing the
theory ofthe com plaint,via public statem ents,to say thatthe building ofairplanes in South
C arolina constitutes "transferred" or "rem oved" w ork because Boeing com m itted to the State of
W ashington thatitw ould build allofthe C om pany's 787s in thatstate.For exam ple,on A pril
26,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 entto 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 om pany's 787s there is false.B oeing fully honored allof its
contractualcom m itm ents to the State ofW ashington long before the decision to locate the
C om pany's new production facility 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 the com plaint.
B.
The com plaintalleges thatsenior Boeing executives show ed a purpose to "punish" union
em ployees and to "threaten" them for their pastand possible future strikes.These allegations
and other public statem ents by N LR B officials to the sam e effect,w hich are based on
m isquotations,selective quoting,and m ischaracterizations ofstatem ents by B oeing executives,
are groundless.
For exam ple,the com plaintalleges thatBoeing C om m ercialA irplanes C EO Jim A lbaugh
stated that B oeing "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 plaint6(e).)In addition,the N LR B's w ebsite offers a "factsheet" that
quotes M r.A lbaugh as saying "the overriding factor" in transferring the line w as w ork
stoppages.In fact,M r.A lbaugh's fullstatem entshow s thathe w as referencing tw o "overriding
factors," only one ofw hich w as the risk ofa future strike,and thatfar from seeking to punish the
NLRB-FOIA-00010180
union,M r.A lbaugh's predisposition w as to place the second line in W ashington State.
M r.A lbaugh's fullstatem enton this pointw as:
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 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'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 m y bias w as to stay here butw e could notgetthose tw o issues done despite the best
efforts ofthe U nion and the bestefforts ofthe com pany.
The italicized sentences,om itted from the C om plaintand the N LR B's w ebsite,are critical
om issions thatdirectly contradictthe N LR B's apparenttheory ofthis case.N o reasonable reader
ofM r.A lbaugh's interview w ould depictitas partofa "consistentm essage" thatBoeing sought
to "punish" its union em ployees.W hen notm isquoted,itis apparentfrom the interview
statem entthatifM r.A lbaugh had a bias,itw as in favor ofPugetSound as the place for the
second assem bly line; that the com pany's preference w as to locate the new line in E verett; and
thatboth the com pany and the union m ade good-faith efforts to accom plish thatshared objective.
O n these facts,itis noteven arguable thatM r.A lbaugh's statem entconstitutes a "m essage" of
"punishm ent" to the union for pastor future strikes.
The com plaintalso attem pts to depicta statem entduring an earnings callby Jim
M cN erney,Boeing's C hairm an and C hiefExecutive O fficer,as a threatto punish union
em ployees.The com plaintalleges thatM r.M cN erney "m ade an extended statem entregarding
'diversifying [Boeing's]labor pooland 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 PugetSound."
(C om plaint6(a)(em phasis added).
H e did notsay thatatall.First,M r.M cN erney w as notm aking an "extended statem ent"
about why Boeing selected N orth C harleston;indeed,the decision aboutw here to locate the new
line had noteven been m ade atthe tim e he participated in thatearnings call.H e w as responding
to a reporter's question aboutthe costofpotentially locating a new assem bly line in N orth
C harleston,and he answ ered only the question regarding com parative costs thatw as asked.
Thus,in the passages m isquoted and m ischaracterized in the com plaint,he discussed the relative
costs of a new facility in a location other than E verett,versus the potentialcosts associated
w ith "strikes happening every three to four years in PugetSound." H e did notsay,as the N LR B
alleged,thatBoeing selected N orth C harleston "due to" strikes.
N or did M r.M cN erney rem otely suggestthatw hatw ould later turn outto be the decision
to open a new line in N orth C harleston w as in retaliation for such strikes.H is answ er sim ply
cannotbe cited in supportofthe com plaint's legaltheories,m uch less in supportofthe sw eeping
statem entm ade by M r.Solom on to the N ew Y ork Tim es aboutB oeing's "consistentm essage"
thatthe C om pany and its executives soughtto "punish" their union em ployees.
10
NLRB-FOIA-00010181
Finally,M r.M cN erney's answ er to a reporter's question w as not"posted on Boeing's
intranetw ebsite for allem ployees," m uch less posted for the purpose ofsending an illegal
m essage under the N LR A ,as the com plaintincorrectly and m isleadingly suggests.
N or do any ofthe other statem ents cited in the com plaintrem otely suggestan intentto
"punish" the C om pany's unionized em ployees.Q uite the contrary:these statem ents show ,at
m 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 fm alassem bly facility.In fact,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 E verett.A lthough those negotiations w ere notsuccessful,thateffort
com pletely underm ines the proposition thatBoeing executives senta "consistentm essage" that
Boeing's decision w as intended to "punish" the union for paststrikes.
C .
The com plaintseeks an order directing Boeing to "have the [IA M ]operate [Boeing's]
second line of787 D ream liner aircraftassem bly production in the State ofW ashington."
N otw ithstanding that,the N LR B has said on its w ebsite thatits com plaintw ould nothave the
effectofclosing the N orth C harleston facility.A s a practicalm atter,how ever,ifthe B oard w ere
to order Boeing to produce in Everettthe additionalthree 787s per m onth thatare planned for
C harleston,thatw ould ofcourse require the production ofallplanned 787 capacity in Everett,
leaving N orth C harleston w ith nothing to do.
The principalallegations ofthe com plaintand the significantrem edy sought thatthe
second line should be m oved to Everett,W ashington pertain to the claim thatBoeing violated
Section 8(a)(3)ofthe N L R A .T o establish a Section 8(a)(3)violation,the B oard m ust,under its
ow n precedents as confirm ed by the courts,show :
(1) that"an em ployee's em ploym entconditions w ere adversely affected";and
(2) thatthe adverse em ploym entaction "w as m otivated by" the em ployee's "union or
other protected activities."
W rightLine, 251 N .L .R .B .1083,1083 (1980); see also A rk Las V egas R estaurantC orp.v.
N LRB, 334 F.3d 99,104 (D .C .C ir.2003).A s a factualand legalm atter,it is not even arguable
thatthese elem ents can be established here.
A .
A n adverse em ploym entaction is one thatdiscrim inates in the "hir[ing]or tenure of
em ploym entor any term or condition ofem ploym ent." See 8(a)(3).A n em ployer's conduct
constitutes an "adverse em ploym entaction" only ifit"actually affect[s]the term s or conditions
11
NLRB-FOIA-00010182
ofem ploym ent." N LR B v.A ir C ontactTransportInc., 403 F.3d 206,212 (4th C ir.2005);
Lancaster F airfield C om m unity H osp., 311 N .L .R .B .401,403-04 (1993)
A n em ployer's decision to build a new factory unaccom panied by layoffs,a reduction
in w ages or benefits,or another change in w orking conditions atexisting facilities does not
constitute an adverse em ploym entaction and thus cannotform the basis for a Section 8(a)(3)
com plaint. See,e.g.,W eather Tam er,Inc.v.N LR B , 676 F.2d 483,491 (11th C ir.1982) ("A
runaw ay shop exists w hen an em ployer,in retaliation againstunion activities,transfers w ork
from the closed facility to another plantor opens a new plantto replace the closed plant.Ifno
transfer ofw ork has taken place ...then there has been no unfair labor practice."); see also
C ynthia L.Estlund,E conom ic R ationality and U nion A voidance: M isunderstanding the N ational
Labor R elations A ct, 71 T ex.L .R ev.921,943 n.80 (1993) ("I have been unable to locate any
decisions holding thata w ithholding ofcapitalinvestm entfrom a union plant,or a decision not
to place new or expanded operations atthe plant,w as discrim inatory under 8(a)(3).Itappears
to be necessary under Board law to show thatexisting unitw ork w as elim inated,subcontracted,
or relocated.").
N o IA M em ployees w ere or w illbe laid off,dem oted,relocated,suffer a reduction in
w ages,benefits,or w ork hours,or have their job duties changed as a resultofthe decision to
locate the second 787 assem bly line in N orth C harleston.A nd the com plaintdoes notallege that
any ofthose adverse em ploym entactions have happened or even thatthey are likely to occur in
the future.T he lack ofany adverse em ploym entaction againstIA M m em bers is fatalto the
Section 8(a)(3)claim .T he N L R A ,by its plain term s,does notgrantunions the unbargained
rightto have potentialnew w ork putin a unionized plant.N either a courtnor the Board has ever
held otherw ise.
N or can an "adverse em ploym entaction" be based upon som e sortof"diffuse" injury to a
union,such as "chilling" supportfor the union,as opposed to a tangible injury to identifiable
em ployees.T here is sim ply no precedentfor thatnoveltheory suggested in the com plaint.
Indeed,such a standard w ould effectively elim inate the adverse-action elem entofa
Section 8(a)(3)violation,and w ould allow the Board to find an unfair labor practice based upon
any em ployer action even actions that are expressly perm itted by the collective bargaining
agreem ent,and harm no em ployees that m ay nevertheless have the effect ofreducing union
bargaining pow er,or have incidentaleffects on unionization.
In addition to being contrary to the plain language ofthe statute w hich speaks in term s
ofconcrete enum erated actions the interpretation suggested w ould effectively conflate the
"adverse action" requirem entw ith the provision's distinctm otive elem ent.Ifthatw ere
perm itted,essentially any action thatis even arguably adverse to the union's interests could be
dubbed an unfair labor practice."C hill" is plainly nota substitute for the threshold adverse
action elem ent. See Textile W orkers v.D arlington M fg.C o., 380 U .S.263,269 (1965).
A s the D .C .C ircuithas explained,the factthatan em ployer's action m ay chillor
dim inish a union's relative bargaining pow er "can have no bearing on the law fulness ofthe
12
NLRB-FOIA-00010183
em ployer's [action]" under Section 8(a)(3)because "itis notthe role ofthe N LR B,and certainly
notthatofthe courts,to regulate the bargaining pow er ofthe parties to a labor dispute." In tl
B hd.of B oilerm akers,Local88 v.N LR B , 858 F.2d 756,766 (D .C .C ir.1988) (em phasis added)
(citing Am .Ship Bldg.Co.v.N LRB, 380 U .S.300,309 (1965)).W ere it otherw ise,com panies
w ould have to be neutralregarding unionization (w hich is notthe law ),neutraltow ards unions in
selecting job sites (w hich is notthe law ),and neutralregarding the effects offuture strikes
(w hich is notthe law ).
A ccordingly,B oeing's decision to place an additional787 finalassem bly facility in
C harleston w as notan adverse action under the plain language ofthe statute and clearly settled
law .
B.
Separate and apartfrom show ing an adverse action,the Board also m ustestablish either
that(1)Boeing's choice ofN orth C harleston w as "inherently destructive" ofprotected activity,
or (2)w as m otivated by anti-union anim us.T he A cting G eneralC ounsel's com plaintfails here,
as w ell.B oeing's decision to place the second line in N orth C harleston w as based upon the
C om pany's overallassessm entofthe business cases for each ofthe tw o locations,and w as m ade
only after extensive voluntary negotiations w ith the IA M .B oeing's desire to m aintain long-term
production stability for the 787 w as a significantconsideration,butthere w ere other im portant
factors,including a large econom ic incentive package.T here is sim ply no case to be m ade for a
single-m inded focus upon the IA M ,m uch less a single-m inded,vindictive focus to punish the
U nion.
E ven ifithad been the case thatB oeing's decision had been based solely on its concern
regarding future strikes for w hich there is nota single shred ofevidence such consideration
w ould notbe unlaw fulor even illegitim ate.T o the contrary,itis established law thatan
em ployer has the rightto m ake legitim ate business decisions in an effortto lim itthe im pactof
future strikes,and such decisions are as a m atter oflaw not"inherently destructive" of
protected activity and do notprovide evidence ofany "anti-union anim us." Further,there is no
legitim ate claim thatB oeing violated the collective bargaining agreem ent.T hus,even ifthe
focus w ere lim ited solely to how B oeing factored into its decision the potentialeconom ic im pact
offuture union actions,there w ould have been no resulting violation ofthe N LR A .
1.
To the extentthatBoeing considered labor stability issues in its decision-m aking process,
itis beyond question that,as a m atter oflaw ,such consideration does notconstitute "inherently
destructive" conduct.A n em ployer's conductqualifies as inherently destructive only ifit
"carries w ith itan inference ofunlaw fulintention so com pelling thatitis justifiable to disbelieve
the em ployer's protestations ofinnocentpurpose." A m .ship B ldg.C o., 380 U .S.at 311-12.T he
conductm ustbe "so destructive ofem ployee rights and so devoid ofsignificantservice to any
legitim ate business end thatitcannotbe tolerated consistently w ith the A ct." N LRB v.Brown,
13
NLRB-FOIA-00010184
380 U .S.278,286 (1965).Such cases are "relatively rare." B oilerm akers, 858 F.2d at762
(quoting Loom is C ourier Serv.,Inc.v.N LR B , 595 F.2d 491,495 (9th C ir.1979)).W here,as
here,the governing collective bargaining agreem entexpressly perm its the challenged action,an
exercise ofthatagreed-upon contractrightby the em ployer cannotbe "inherently destructive" of
protected rights.
The Suprem e C ourthas m ade itclear thatthere is a "w ide range ofem ployer actions
taken to serve legitim ate business interests in som e significantfashion,even though the act
com m itted m ay tend to discourage union m em bership." A m .Ship B uilding, 380 U .S.at 311
(citing N LR B v.M ackay R adio & Telegraph C o., 304 U .S.333 (1938)).A nd the C ourt in
A m erican Ship B uilding also m ade clear that"there is nothing in the [N LR A ]w hich gives
em ployees the rightto insiston their contractdem ands,free from the sortofeconom ic
disadvantages thatfrequently attend bargaining disputes." 380 U .S.at313.Indeed,the A ct
"do[es]notgive the Board a generalauthority to assess the relative econom ic pow er ofthe
adversaries and to deny w eapons to one party or the other because of[the Board's]assessm entof
thatparty's bargaining pow er." Id. at317.B utthatis precisely w hatthe com plaintagainst
B oeing seeks to do,overturning forty-five years ofpolicy and precedent.In order to protectthe
rightofJA M em ployees to strike to obtain their collective agenda,A cting G eneralC ounsel
Solom on w ould deny to B oeing w ell-established and legitim ate defensive actions long available
to em ployers.
Boeing's decision to putthe second 787 line in N orth C harleston,grounded in partin an
interestto m itigate the effects ofa future IA M strike on 787 production,is precisely the sortof
defensive em ployer action that does not violate Section 8(a)(3).In B row n still a leading case
in this area the Suprem e C ourtheld thatthere w as no "inherently destructive" conductw here
an em ployer,in response to a strike,locked outits regular em ployees and used tem porary
replacem ents to carry on business.In discussing the legitim ate defensive m easures thatan
em ployer m ay take,the C ourtnoted "the Board['s]conce[ssion]thatan em ployer m ay
legitim ately bluntthe effectiveness ofan anticipated strike" by,am ong other tactics,
"transferring w ork from one plantto another,even ifhe thereby m akes him self'virtually
strikeproof." 380 U .S.at283 (em phasis added).The C ourtrepeated thatrule in m uch the sam e
w ords in C harles D .B onanno L inen Service,Inc.v.N L R B , 454 U .S.404,416 n.9 (1982) ("[A n
em ployer can] try to bluntthe effectiveness ofan anticipated strike by," inter alia, "transferring
w ork from one plantto another.").
If"transferring w ork from one plantto another" is not "so destructive ofem ployee rights
and so devoid ofsignificantservice to any legitim ate business end thatitcannotbe tolerated
consistently w ith the A ct," then choosing to locate new w ork atone site (N orth C harleston),
w ithout reducing w ork atanother (Everett) and in factincreasing w ork atthatother site could
notpossibly be "inherently destructive" either. See B row n, 380 U .S.at 284,287.
Itcom es as little surprise,then,thatBoeing's actions do notfallw ithin the tw o
established categories of"inherently destructive" conduct.The firstinvolves clear-cut
discrim ination betw een w orkers "based on their participation (or lack ofparticipation)" in
14
NLRB-FOIA-00010185
protected union activity. Esm ark,Inc.v.N LRB, 887 F.2d 739,748 & 749 n.14 (7th C ir.1989)
(collecting cases).B oeing plainly did notapply differentialpunishm ents or rew ards to Puget
Sound area em ployees based on their varying degrees ofunion activity.
A second,narrow er category ofinherently destructive action involves conductthat
"discourages collective bargaining in the sense of m aking it seem a futile exercise in the eyes of
em ployees." Boilerm akers, 858 F.2d at764.T here is no authority for treating an em ployer's
exercise ofits contractualrightto add new production w herever itchooses as "inherently
destructive" under thatcategory and considerable contrary authority.Indeed,under the
B oard's ow n decision in M ilw aukee Spring II, 268 N .L .R .B .601 (1984), enfd,Auto W orkers v.
N LRB, 765 F.2d 175,179 (D .C .C ir.1985),even a w ork relocation is not"inherently

destructive" ofprotected rights ifconsistentw ith the em ployer's rights under the governing
collective bargaining agreem ent.T he A cting G eneralC ounsel's com plaintw ould setaside that
longstanding precedentas w ell.
2.
W hile B oeing's decision w as based on a num ber offactors,including business clim ate,
incentives,geographicaldiversity,labor and construction costs,and production stability,to the
extentthe potentialim pactoffuture strikes w as considered am ong those factors,the facts here do
notsupporta claim thatthe C om pany's decision w as m otivated by anti-union anim us.A s
previously discussed,the statem ents ofB oeing executives cited in the com plaintfallfar shortof
evidencing anti-union anim us,how ever m uch the com plainttakes those statem ents outof
context,m isquotes others,and selectively quotes stillothers.Statem ents ofconcern aboutfuture
strikes are sim ply notevidence ofanti-union anim us as a m atter oflaw .A nd neither do these
statem ents reflecta backw ard-looking desire to punish the JA M for the 2008 strike.Instead,
these statem ents reflectBoeing's forthrightacicnow ledgem ent thatproduction setbacks caused by
strikes are econom ically dam aging to its aircraftm anufacturing operation,and thatits econom ic
need and its custom ers'dem ands for future production stability contributed to its choice of
N orth C harleston,after the IA M 's dem ands in exchange for a long-term extension ofthe existing
collective bargaining agreem entproved unacceptable.B oeing operates in a highly com petitive
industry thatruns on long-term production com m itm ents.Thatbusiness reality w as one
consideration in B oeing's decision to build a new production facility in a location thatw illallow
som e 787 production to continue during any future IA M strike in Everett.
T hatB oeing considered as one partofits business decision the benefits ofim proving
production stability by avoiding strikes is notim proper anti-union anim us.Both Suprem e C ourt
precedents and the consistentposition ofthe Board since 1965 m ake plain thatan em ployer's
interestin avoiding or m itigating the econom ic harm caused by anticipated strikes is a legitim ate
business objective.In its briefto the Suprem e C ourtin A m erican Ship B uilding, the Board said
thatan em ployer's decision "transferring w ork from one plantto another" w as a "legitim ate
defensive m easure[]," even ifdoing so m akes the em ployer "virtually `strikeproofduring the
period follow ing the expiration ofa contract." B rieffor the N L R B at17, Am .Ship Building Co.
v.N LRB, 380 U .S.300 (1965) (N o.255).A s previously noted,the C ourt in Brown em braced
15
NLRB-FOIA-00010186
and adopted the B oard's view ,380 U .S.at283,as the C ourtdid again in C harles D .B onanno
Linen Service,Inc., 454 U .S.at416 (em ployers m ay legitim ately "try to bluntthe effectiveness
ofan anticipated strike"). See B irkenw ald D istributing, 282 N .L .R .B .954 (1987) (em ployer
m otivation to averteconom ic dam age caused by anticipated strike w as legitim ate); B etts
C adillac O lds,Inc., 96 N .L .R .B .268,285 (1951) ("[A n em ployer] has,and needs,the right to
protecthim selfby reasonable m easures from harm fuleconom ic or operative consequences ofa
strike.").T he com plaintfiled by the A cting G eneralC ounselsim ply ignores the B oard's ow n
precedents and the controlling Suprem e C ourtdecisions.
Boeing's public statem ents explaining its reasons for choosing N orth C harleston are
consistentw ith legitim ate defensive actions thatthe courts and the Board have held that
em ployers m ay take w ithoutviolating Section 8(a)(3),and are protected statem ents under
Section 8(c)ofthe N LR A ,notto m ention the FirstA m endm ent. 2 A nd those statem ents cannot
be view ed as pretexts for anti-union m otivation.Itis sim ply im plausible,on both econom ic and
labor-relations grounds,thatBoeing w ould undertake a m ulti-billion-dollar expansion in N orth
C harleston sim ply to retaliate againstthe IA M for past strikes,rather than to im provefiaure
production stability for the 787.M oreover,B oeing's decision did not involve a transfer of any
w ork from its existing operations and by no m eans m ade the C om pany "strikeproof." Boeing
rem ains heavily invested in,and com m itted to,the PugetSound area,w here allofits com m ercial
aircraftare currently assem bled,and w here the IA M represents 25,000 m em bers ofthe
bargaining unit.3
Indeed,thatBoeing reached outto the IA M to try to negotiate a long-term contractbefore
itm ade its decision as to w here to place the new 787 assem bly line w holly underm ines any
suggestion thatthe C om pany w anted to punish the JA M .Significantly,the com plaintfails to
m ention Boeing's efforts in thatregard,although the A cting G eneralC ounseland his staffw ere
fully aw are ofthose negotiations.First,B oeing had no obligation to negotiate w ith the IA M
aboutthe location ofthe second fm alassem bly line;Section 21.7 ofthe collective bargaining
agreem entgave Boeing the unilateralrightto decide w here the w ork w ould be placed.In fact,
.)
Those statem ents are neither threats nor attem pts to coerce or restrain IA M m em bers from
engaging in protected activities and do not violate Section 8(a)(1),notw ithstanding the
com plaint's contrary allegations.
3 T he IA M
voted to strike B oeing's St.L ouis facility,and other unions have struck B oeing's
other facilities,since B oeing announced its decision to place the second line in N orth
C harleston.B oeing is unaw are ofany objective or subjective evidence ofdecreased interest
in union activity by em ployees atPugetSound or elsew here.Indeed,the IA M 's m em bership
in the PugetSound area is about25,000 strong,w ith hiring continuing,and the bargaining
unitw orks on building com ponentparts for and assem bling B oeing's 737,747,757,767 and
777 airplanes.In those circum stances,even w ithout controlof all D ream liner production,the
IA M 's bargaining pow er rem ains m assive.
16
NLRB-FOIA-00010187
B oeing's decision to invite the IA M to negotiate,even w hen itw as notcontractually required to
do so,raises an alm ostirrefutable inference ofgood faith and a desire to cooperate w ith the
U nion. See D em ocratic U nion O rganizing C om m .v.N LR B , 603 F.2d 862,887 (D .C .C ir.1978)
("[T]he factthatthe com panies inform ed the union thatthey w ere considering leasing and
'invited discussion before their finaldecision'evinces a greater com m itm enton their partto the
collective bargaining process than w as reflected by the U nion.").E ven ifB oeing had not
negotiated w ith the U nion and had m erely exercised its rights under the collective bargaining
agreem ent,and follow ing its decision,sim ply announced itw as locating a second line in N orth
C harleston,thatalone w ould noteven arguably be evidence ofpunishm ent.
Second,B oeing's conductduring the course ofthe negotiations w ith the IA M sim ilarly
does notsupportan inference ofanim us.Boeing could notreach agreem entw ith the JA M due to
the U nion's dem ands for,am ong other things,a neutrality agreem entand a m odification of
Section 21.7 thatw ould require Boeing to place future w ork in PugetSound or face a perhaps-
crippling strike by the IA M .B ecause ofthe tim eline for reaching a decision on the second line,
Boeing reasonably asked the IA M for its last,bestoffer and even gave itadditionaltim e to m ake
that offer.T hat B oeing did not accept the IA M 's best and finaloffer w as sim ply B oeing's
exercise ofits rightnotto agree to a tradeoffthatw as m aterially adverse to the interests ofits
shareholders,custom ers,and em ployees.
N o inference ofanti-union anim us can plausibly be draw n from the factthe IA M w as
unsuccessfulin its negotiation to have the second 787 assem bly line established in PugetSound.
A tm ost,an inference can be draw n thatB oeing w as only w illing to agree to place the second
line in Everetton term s itfound acceptable.Butw here,as here,"the intention proven is m erely
to bring abouta settlem entofa labor dispute on favorable term s,no violation of (a)(3)is
show n." A m .ship B uilding, 380 U .S.at 313.Put another w ay,the N L R A is not so slanted in
favor ofunions thata union's failure to achieve its goals atthe bargaining table establishes that
the em ployer w as acting from anti-union anim us,rather than for legitim ate business reasons.
A nd thatis true even ifthe failure to achieve a favorable resultlessens the union's bargaining
pow er.A s the D .C .C ircuitexplained on this very point:
Itis clear...thatany effecton the parties'relative bargaining pow er so long as
itdoes notsubstantially im pair the em ployee's ability to organize and to engage
in concerted activity is sim ply outside the scope ofproper inquiry under
Sections 8(a)(1) and (3).
B oilerm akers, 858 F.2d at 765.T he notion that B oeing's contractually-sanctioned decision an
action thatdoes notaffectany term s or conditions ofa currentIA M m em ber's em ploym ent
could som ehow cause "substantialim pairm ent" ofthe 'A M 's 25,000-strong PugetSound
bargaining unit's ability to organize and function,is sim ply notcredible.
B oeing considered m any factors in m aking its decision.A nd B oeing's taking into
accountthe econom ic effects ofa potentialfuture strike,as one elem entofthatanalysis,w as
17
NLRB-FOIA-00010188
entirely proper under the law .Boeing considered the im portance ofensuring stable production
ofthe 787,notw hether the IA M should be punished for pastconduct.
IV .
B oeing's business decision to constructa new 787 production facility in C harleston w as
based on a num ber oflegitim ate considerations,allofw hich w ere plainly perm issible under the
relevantcollective bargaining agreem entand established law .T o the extentB oeing considered
the possibility offuture strikes by the JA M am ong m any other factors,Boeing w as entitled to
rely on the provisions ofits contractw ith the IA M and settled precedentunder the N LR A in
m aking an econom ic decision w here to place the second 787 fm alassem bly line.
A tbottom ,the A cting G eneralC ounselis seeking to change radically the balance
betw een m anagem entand unions struck by the N LR A ,as the A cthas been interpreted for the
last75 years.H e seeks to change the law so thatw hata union cannotachieve atthe bargaining
table itw illbe able to achieve through the B oard.B utthe A ctsim ply does notprovide the B oard
or the courts w ith the authority to "assess the relative econom ic pow er ofthe adversaries in the
bargaining process and to deny w eapons to one party or the other because of[the Board's]
assessm entofthatparty's bargaining pow er." Am .Ship Building, 380 U .S.at 317.T o do so
w ould am ountto "the Board's entrance into the substantive aspects ofthe bargaining process to
an extentC ongress has notcountenanced." Id. at 317-18.
A gain,thank you.I w illbe glad to answ er any questions the C om m ittee m ay have.
18
NLRB-FOIA-00010189
P age 1 of3
K e a rn e y , B a rry J .
F ro m :
A h e a rn , R ich a rd L .
S e n t:
T h u rsd a y, A p ril 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 6 :0 1 P M
T o:
S o lo m o n , L a fe E .; M a ttin a , C e le ste J.; C le e la n d , N a n cy; K e a rn e y, B a rry J.; F a rre ll, E lle n
S u b je ct:
F W : V icto ry O n O u r U L P
A tta ch m e n ts: 2 0 1 1 _ 0 4 2 0 C o m p la in t N o tice o f H e a rin g .p d f
T h e la st se n te n ce re p re se n ts th e b e st h o p e fo r b o th p a rtie s.
F ro m : S noo k, D enn is
S e n t: T h u rsd a y, A p ril 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 2 :4 9 P M
T o : A hea rn , R icha rd L.
S u b je c t: F W : V icto ry O n O u r U L P
R ich,
F ro m S e n . M u rra y's o ffice .
F ro m : G le n n , M a ry (M u rra y) [m a ilto :M ary_G len n @ m u rra y.sen a te.g o v]
S e n t: T hursday, A pril 21, 2011 2:3 9 P M
T o : d e n n is.sn o o k@ n lrb .g o v
S u b je c t: F W : V ictory O n O ur U LP
W e th o u g h t yo u m ig h t like to sh a re th is w ith th e o ffice
F ro m : C onw ay, M ary (M urray)
S e n t: W e d n e sd a y, A p ril 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 1 0 :5 0 A M
T o : G le n n , M a ry (M u rra y)
S u b je c t: F W : V ictory O n O ur U LP
F Y I fe e l fre e to sh a re w ith fo lks a cro ss th e h a ll.
F ro m : L a rry B ro w n [m a ilto :L a rry B ia m 7 5 1 .o rg ]
S e n t: W e d n e sd a y, A p ril 2 0 , 2 0 1 1 1 0 :4 7 A M
S u b je c t: F W : V icto ry O n O u r U L P
La rry B row n
L e g isla tive & P o litica l D ire cto r
A e ro sp a ce M a ch in ists 7 5 1
2 0 6 7 6 4 -0 3 0 6 (o ffice )
2 0 6 7 1 3 -2 4 3 7 (ce ll)
T H IS M E S S A G E IS B E IN G S E N T O N B E H A L F O F D IS T R IC T P R E S ID E N T T O M
W R O B L E W S K I:
B e lo w is th e p re ss re le a se a n d sta te m e n t w h ich w ill b e p o ste d o n o u r w e b site a n d se n t to
S te w a rd s, m e m b e rs a n d th e m e d ia o n o u r u n fa ir la b o r p ra ctice . I h a ve a lso a tta ch e d th e N L R B
4 22 2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010190
Page 2 of 3
C om plaint and N otice of H earing.
T his is a m ajor victory for allw orkers everyw here. I w ant to thank allof you for your role in
m aking this happen.
M ach in ists A p p lau d N L R B C om p lain t O ver B oein g S ou th C arolin a M ove
SE A T T L E ,W A -- A com plaint issued today by the N ationalLabor R elations B oard against the
B oeing C o. is a victory for allA m erican w orkers particularly aerospace w orkers in both P uget
S ound and S outh C arolina, officials w ith the M achinists U nion said.
T he federalcom plaint alleges that B oeing's decision in 2009 to locate a 787 finalassem bly line
in N orth C harleston, S .C ., represented illegalretaliation against m em bers of the International
A ssociation of M achinists & A erospace W orkers w ho w ork for the com pany.
A s a rem edy for the legalviolation, the federalagency is seeking a judicialorder requiring
B oeing to operate the second 787 line, including supply lines, w ith union m achinist w orkers in
the P uget S ound.
B oeing "m ade coercive statem ents to its em ployees that it w ould rem ove or had rem oved w ork
from the unit because em ployees had struck," the N LR B com plaint alleges. T hat action w as
"inherently destructive to the rights guaranteed em ployees" under federallaw , it says.
T he board's action reinforces the fact that "w orkers have a right to join a union, and com panies
don't have a right to punish them for engaging in legalunion activities," said T om W roblew ski,
the president of M achinists U nion D istrict Lodge 751 in S eattle. "T aking w ork aw ay from
w orkers because they exercise their union rights is against the law , and it's against the law in
all50 states."
.
T he board's com plaint com es after a year-long investigation, and is in response to an U nfair
Labor P ractice charge filed in M arch 2010 by D istrict 751. In it, the board cites repeated
statem ents by B oeing spokespeople and executives that the "overriding" factor in the decision
to open the C harleston plant w as the com pany's problem s reaching contracts w ith the
M achinists U nion representing w orkers in P uget S ound.
"B y opening the line in C harleston, B oeing tried to intim idate our m em bers w ith the idea that
the com pany w ould take aw ay their w ork unless they m ade concessions at the bargaining
table," W roblew skisaid. "B ut the law is clear: A m erican w orkers have a right to pursue
collective bargaining, and no com pany not even B oeing can threaten or punish them for
exercising those rights."
T he decision to open in C harleston also cam e after it w as m ade clear to w orkers there that the
only w ay they could ensure their future w ork on the 787 w ould be if they left the M achinists
U nion, forcing them to sacrifice their collective bargaining rights to have a chance at m ore jobs.
F ortunately for them , "the sam e federalrights that apply to the rest of A m erica also apply in
S outh C arolina," W roblew skisaid. "S hould they ever decide to form a union again, the
C harleston w orkers could do it know ing that B oeing couldn't retaliate against them for seeking
better pay, benefits and w orking conditions."
"H ad w e allow ed B oeing to break the law and go unchecked in their actions, it w ould have
4/22/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00010191
P age 3 of 3
given the green 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 em ployees," W roblew ski added.
T he dispute has its ro ots in rece nt M ach inists U nion strikes tha t w ere trig gered b y B oein g
proposals to gut health care and pension benefits for w orkers, and to erode job security by
giving w ork histo rically done inside the factories by M a chinists to non-un ion con tractors.
T he strikes prom p ted B o eing officials to re taliate b y m oving 7 87 fina l assem bly and su pply
chain w ork to C harleston, according to the N LR B com plaint.
T he statem en ts by B o eing, lin king futu re expa nsion in C harlesto n to fu ture unio n activity in
P ug et S ou nd, ha ve not slow ed d ow n. A s re cently a s last w ee k, a B o eing spo kesw om an told
T he S eattle T im es of B oeing's inten tion to m ake th e C harleston facility in depe ndent of P ug et
S ound because of the risk of strikes here.
W roblew ski said th at even after filing the U n fair Labo r P ractice ch arge, th e unio n has b een
ope n to ta lking w ith B oeing about a long-term solution to its P uget S ound la bor issue s.
"T he ruling is an o pportun ity for B o eing to m ove b eyond a failed strategy of confro ntation and
to w o rk m ore close ly w ith its e m ployees and th eir represe ntatives and th e com m un ities that
have stood by them for years," W roblew ski said. "M oving forw ard, w e w ould hope B oeing
w ould partner w ith us to build on the success w e achieved w orking together on the A ir F orce
tan ker, rathe r than b attling to try to in tim idate w orkers w ho account for less than 5 percent of
their product cost."
B efore B oeing announced its C harleston decision, the M achinists had offered the com pany an
unp receden ted 11 -year ag re em ent that w ou ld have given th e com pa ny the "lab or pea ce," it
claim ed it needed to be successful.
S ince the C h arleston annou ncem ent, B oeing hasn't be en w illing to have any serio us
conversations about its future in P uget S ound, W roblew ski said.
"I'm ready to have that conversation," he said. "W e need to sit dow n and talk about our shared
futu re, and w hat b oth side s need to be successfu l long-term . T hat kind of con versation is
w hat's in the best interest of our com pany, our m em be rs and o ur com m un ities."
4222O 11
NLRB-FOIA-00010192
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Purcell, Anne G.
Sent:
To:
Kelly, David A.
Cc:
Levin, Nelson; Siegel, Richard A.
Subject:
FW: Advice Memorandum - Case 19-CA-32431
Attachments:
From: Bush, Lynn
To: Region 19, Seattle; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: Advice Memorandum - Case 19-CA-32431
Lynn
NLRB-FOIA-00010193
NLRB-FOIA-00010194
NLRB-FOIA-00010195
Advice Memorandum
DATE:
April 11, 2011
S.A.M.
TO:
Region 19
FROM:
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
line.
activity.
the agreement.

NLRB-FOIA-00010196
Case 19-CA-32431
- 2 -


FACTS

this Agreement[.]
ten employees.

Section 21.7
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00010197
Case 19-CA-32431
- 3 -


In

For example,




strike.

is a big deal[.]

NLRB-FOIA-00010198
Case 19-CA-32431
- 4 -
strike zone[.]


Kiga
above.
summit in Chicago.

IAM representatives

This was the first
ended.
1 In his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
2
Union had struck.

in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
NLRB-FOIA-00010199
Case 19-CA-32431
- 5 -
future strikes.

Doug Kight.
labor relations.

At a subsequent
supplier issues.

IAM

Boeing agreed to

customers.

During August,
NLRB-FOIA-00010200
Case 19-CA-32431
- 6 -

Meanwhile, the
assembly line.



The Union said

At the end of the


On September

But truthfully, it
NLRB-FOIA-00010201
Case 19-CA-32431
- 7 -

So weve become an
reliable supplier.
do.
weeks.

Carolina.
on October 1.

The Union

In

The Union
control.

When a Union
would get more.

NLRB-FOIA-00010202
Case 19-CA-32431
- 8 -

The Union

Also,
Carolina.
negotiations.


Conner


committee.
generation product.

Indeed, the

get back to him.
NLRB-FOIA-00010203
Case 19-CA-32431
- 9 -

We would obviously


...
And so some of the
Sound.

Our customers
couple of weeks.

Michalski explained
of conduct.
not respond.

He wanted

Keating did not
their State.

On
seven years.
NLRB-FOIA-00010204
Case 19-CA-32431
- 10 -

In a press

The managers were

line.


The
our customers eyes.


customers.
NLRB-FOIA-00010205
Case 19-CA-32431
- 11 -
Jim Albaugh.

The

history.
haul.
with the union.

of wages.
Charleston.

... And


NLRB-FOIA-00010206
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -

It was that
three years.
schedule.

Approximately 1,740
approximately 60%.
ACTION


Then, when Boeing

It also
election.
years.
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00010207
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
the Union.



Nor could Boeing
months.
problems.

activity.
rights.

NLRB-FOIA-00010208
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -

The Court


supplier strategy.9
plant.
employment.10
activity.12
Ibid.
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
See id. at 520.
10
See id. at 520-21.
11
See id. at 521.
12
See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00010209
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
date.13

Thus, telling

unlawful threats.17
13
14
th
mem. 50 F.3d 1037 (11
1997).
15
Aelco Corp., 326 NLRB 1262, 1265 (1998).

See also Dorsey
th
part 233 F.3d 831 (4
16
311 NLRB at 1200.

17
unionized).
18
Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00010210
Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -

An employer may
to predicting

Some statements

Others were
testifies.21

And statements
(1)

During the call,
Sound.22
(2)

The
19
20
consequences).
21
22
23
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00010211
Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -
(3)
strikes.25
(4)
activity.26
II.

Instead of
24
to employees.
25

If
26
NLRB-FOIA-00010212
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -

Future work
desirable 787 jobs.

layoffs.
layoffs.
implemented.

In


its nonunion plant.

employees.30
27
28
Ibid.
29
th
Cir. 1990).
30
See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00010213
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
have performed.




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

See also
32
33
34
35
NLRB-FOIA-00010214
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
activity.36
strike.
strike.38

And the Board has
right to strike.
36
37
380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38
See id. at 283-85.
39
See id. at 284.
40
See ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00010215
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
substantial.42


Boeing has

The substantial

In addition, Boeing
Washington.

In
striking.

th
41
See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
42
Cir.
See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
43
NLRB-FOIA-00010216
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent.44
rights.45



the employees.46
employee rights.47
Paper.

Second, Boeings

position.
44
228, 231 (1963).

th
(4
Cir. 2000).
45
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
46
47

See also
NLRB-FOIA-00010217
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -


And the many
with the union.48


Section 8(a)(3).
48
49
NLRB-FOIA-00010218
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
subject.
A.

Alternatively, the

unit jobs.54
50
51
52
Ibid.
53
54
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00010219
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
bargaining unit.55
an expanded unit.56
jobs.57

Even

The work
unit employees.


In fact,
escalating.
55
56
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
57
134 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998).

NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
58
59
NLRB-FOIA-00010220
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009.
Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
B.

The Board will

In interpreting

This
60
61
See id. at 812, fn. 19.
62
64
See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00010221
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
contract.66
agreement.




65
Id. at 1260.
66
Id. at 1262.
67
68
th
Cir.
NLRB-FOIA-00010222
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -

also lacks merit.


Absent
modifications.71
69

70
71
NLRB-FOIA-00010223
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
rights.72


At present,

Thus, the
72
the Act).
73
1093 (1996).
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00010224
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.J.K.
ROFs - 9
74

The Region should

In the

This will
NLRB-FOIA-00010225
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kobe, James
Video Tape.pdf
To: Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne; Perkins, Victoria
See attached.
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010226
M em orandum
TO :
DATE:
M a y 25, 2 010
FR O M :
S U B JE C T :
B oeing C om pany
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
NLRB-FOIA-00010227
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
M ay 25 ,2 0 1 0
-2-
P lease advise.
R . L. A .
cc:
NLRB-FOIA-00010228
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kobe, James
fyi
rich
Exemption 5
Eric
Eric,
Exemption 5
Rich
Rich:
Exemption 5
Eric
NLRB-FOIA-00010229
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010230
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
CA-32431
Kobe, James
Thursday, July 08, 2010 8:50 PM
Estep, Susan C.
THese are the last ?? heh heh
Boeing Company
On 5/25/10 Regional Memo to Advice and Special Litigation
submitted per CHM Section 11770.4 seeking clearance to issue
a subpoena as the Region proposes issuing a subpoena to
members of the press requiring the production of materials
secured as a result of news gathering activities.
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010231
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010232
non-responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010233
non-responsive
Jim Kobe
ARD, Region 19
206-220-6314
NLRB-FOIA-00010234
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kobe, James
Sent:
Monday, February 07, 2011 5:04 PM
To:
Estep, Susan C.
Subject:
First draft of EOM Excuses
Attachments:
OALIST for JAn 11 jrk edited.doc
Jim Kobe
ARD, Region 19
206-220-6314
NLRB-FOIA-00010235
Cases Pending Disposition
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010236
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
Non-Responsive
Page 2
NLRB-FOIA-00010237
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
Non-Responsive
Page 3
NLRB-FOIA-00010238
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
Non-Responsive
9.
19-CA-32811)
Boeing Company
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.
11/1/10
The first, and primary charge (19-CA-32431) concerned allegations by
the Union that Boeing unlawfully announced and began planning (and,
in fact, had begun initial construction) for a new, nonunion facility in
South Carolina to manufacture 787 airplanes when, at the same time,
there was ongoing 787 construction in Everett, W ashington with a
unionized force that was covered by a collective bargaining
agreement. Such initial charge also included the GENERAL allegation
that the Employer also violated the Act by outsourcing/subcontracting
the production of ancillary parts and equipment (e.g., airplane seats,
etc.) to third parties. That case is currently still in Advice with oral
presentations by the parties having been scheduled. In the instant
charge, i.e., CA-32811, the Union further (and relatedly) alleges the
Employer unlawfully announced the SPECIFICS of its intentions to
outsource/subcontract specific fabrication of specific ancillary parts
and equipment to third parties.
Non-Responsive
Page 4
NLRB-FOIA-00010239
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
Non-Responsive
Page 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010240
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
Non-Responsive
Page 6
NLRB-FOIA-00010241
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
Non-Responsive
Page 7
NLRB-FOIA-00010242
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kobe, James
Sent:
Monday, February 07, 2011 7:01 PM
To:
Estep, Susan C.
Subject:
Further excuses (in RED)
Attachments:
OALIST for JAn 11 jrk edited.doc
Jim Kobe
ARD, Region 19
206-220-6314
NLRB-FOIA-00010243
Cases Pending Disposition
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010244
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
Non-Responsive
Page 2
NLRB-FOIA-00010245
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
Non-Responsive
Page 3
NLRB-FOIA-00010246
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
Non-Responsive
9.
19-CA-32811)
Boeing Company
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.
11/1/10
The first, and primary charge (19-CA-32431) concerned allegations by
the Union that Boeing unlawfully announced and began planning (and,
in fact, had begun initial construction) for a new, nonunion facility in
South Carolina to manufacture 787 airplanes when, at the same time,
there was ongoing 787 construction in Everett, W ashington with a
unionized force that was covered by a collective bargaining
agreement. Such initial charge also included the GENERAL allegation
that the Employer also violated the Act by outsourcing/subcontracting
the production of ancillary parts and equipment (e.g., airplane seats,
etc.) to third parties. That case is currently still in Advice with oral
presentations by the parties having been scheduled. In the instant
charge, i.e., CA-32811, the Union further (and relatedly) alleges the
Employer unlawfully announced the SPECIFICS of its intentions to
outsource/subcontract specific fabrication of specific ancillary parts
and equipment to third parties.
Non-Responsive
Page 4
NLRB-FOIA-00010247
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
Non-Responsive
Page 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010248
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
Non-Responsive
Page 6
NLRB-FOIA-00010249
Fn
Docket No.
Case Name
Date Filed
Overage
Category
Non-Responsive
Page 7
NLRB-FOIA-00010250
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
From: Szapiro, Miriam
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 11:49 AM
To: Martin, Andrew
Subject: book order request
Hi Andrew, Advice needs the following book in relation to a current case. Can the library
order it for us?
Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American Workers and Managers
http://www.amazon.com/Turbulence-Boeing-American-Workers-Managers/dp/0300154615
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
Supervisory attorney
NLRB Division of Advice
202-273-0998
Miriam.Szapiro@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-00010251
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Martin, Andrew
Monday, November 22, 2010 12:00 PM
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: book order request
Ive passed this on to the Powers That Be. Im sure youll be shocked to learn that there are some bureaucratic hoops to
jump through, but hopefully well be able to get this for you soon.
To: Martin, Andrew
order it for us?
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00010252
Microsoft Outlook
Nonresponsive
To: Martin, Andrew
order it for us?
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00010253
Microsoft Outlook
Nonresponsive
To: Martin, Andrew
order it for us?
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00010254
Microsoft Outlook
Nonresponsive
To: Martin, Andrew
order it for us?
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00010255
Microsoft Outlook
Nonresponsive
To: Martin, Andrew
order it for us?
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
NLRB-FOIA-00010256
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00010257
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Estep, Susan C.
Kearney, Barry J.; Moskowitz, Eric G.
Baniszewski, Joseph; Ahearn, Richard L.
Boeing Company, Case 19-CA-32431
Video Tape.pdf
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010258
M em orandum
TO :
DATE:
M a y 25, 2 010
FR O M :
S U B JE C T :
B oeing C om pany
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
NLRB-FOIA-00010259
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
M ay 25 ,2 0 1 0
-2-
P lease advise.
R . L. A .
cc:
NLRB-FOIA-00010260
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Ahearn, Richard L.
Video Tape.pdf
Rich:
Exemption 5
Eric
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010261
M em orandum
TO :
DATE:
M a y 25, 2 010
FR O M :
S U B JE C T :
B oeing C om pany
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
NLRB-FOIA-00010262
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
M ay 25 ,2 0 1 0
-2-
P lease advise.
R . L. A .
cc:
NLRB-FOIA-00010263
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Eric,
Ahearn, Richard L.
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Exemption 5
Rich
Rich:
Exemption 5
Eric
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010264
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Platt, Nancy; Flanagan, Kevin P.
Eric,
Exemption 5
Rich
Rich:
Exemption 5
Eric
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010265
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Ahearn, Richard L.
Kearney, Barry J.; Platt, Nancy; Flanagan, Kevin P.
Exemption 5
Eric
Eric,
Exemption 5
Rich
Rich:
Exemption 5
Eric
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010266
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Moskowitz, Eric G.
rich
Exemption 5
Eric
Eric,
Exemption 5
Rich
Rich:
Exemption 5
Eric
NLRB-FOIA-00010267
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010268
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Ahearn, Richard L.; Moskowitz, Eric G.
Platt, Nancy; Flanagan, Kevin P.; Sophir, Jayme
Re: Boeing Company, Case 19-CA-32431
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Wed May 26 18:05:25 2010
rich
Exemption 5
Eric
Eric,
Exemption 5
Rich
Rich:
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010269
Eric
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010270
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Flanagan, Kevin P.
Thursday, May 27, 2010 9:43 AM
Heres my take:
Exemption 5
(1)
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010271
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Eric
Eric,
Exemption 5
Rich
Rich:
Exemption 5
Eric
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010272
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Kearney, Barry J.; Moskowitz, Eric G.
Platt, Nancy; Flanagan, Kevin P.; Sophir, Jayme
We havent asked that question; I understand Special Lit will be inquiring.
Rich
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Moskowitz, Eric G.
Cc: Platt, Nancy; Flanagan, Kevin P.; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: Re: Boeing Company, Case 19-CA-32431
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Wed May 26 18:05:25 2010
rich
Exemption 5
Eric
Eric, We (in the metaphorical sense)did not attempt to determine that; in fact it was Andrew Martin of our library who

Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010273
Rich
Rich:
Exemption 5
Eric
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010274
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Flanagan, Kevin P.
Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Extended Interview with Boeing CEO Jim Albaugh
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Kevin
Hello Kevin,
Regards,
Evelyn Edens
The Seattle Times
206-464-2299
To: Evelyn Edens
NLRB-FOIA-00010275
Thanks,
Kevin
__
Kevin Flanagan
Phone: (202) 273-2938 Fax: (202) 273-1799
NLRB-FOIA-00010276
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Flanagan, Kevin P.
Sent:
Thursday, June 03, 2010 9:29 AM
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Cc:
Subject:
Contact with Dominic Gates re: Boeing Co., 19-CA-32431
Rich: Ive confirmed with Eric that he doesnt have a problem with you responding to Dominic Gatess
inquiry into the nature of the pending investigation.
__
Kevin P. Flanagan
1099 14th Street, N.W., Suite 8600
phone: (202) 273-2938
fax: (202) 273-1799
e-mail: Kevin.Flanagan@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-00010277
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Flanagan, Kevin P.; Platt, Nancy
Advice called. They have not and will not be doing anything on this submission; and are closing the case on their docket.
Are we waiting to hear from Ahearn?
Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2010 9:43 AM
To: Moskowitz, Eric G.; Platt, Nancy
Heres my take:
Exemption 5
(1)
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010278
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Eric
Eric, We (in the metaphorical sense)did not attempt to determine that; in fact it was Andrew Martin of our library who

Exemption 5
Rich
Rich:
Exemption 5
Eric
NLRB-FOIA-00010279
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010280
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Flanagan, Kevin P.
'Evelyn Edens'
Ahearn, Richard L.; Snook, Dennis
Evelyn I have confirmed that the terms you outlined on June 1st will work. At this time, the NLRB
intends to purchase only one copy of the videos but may purchase additional copies as the investigation
proceeds. Dennis Snook in our Seattle regional office will contact you to arrange for payment and
acquisition of the videos.
Thanks,
Kevin
Hello Kevin,
Regards,
Evelyn Edens
The Seattle Times
206-464-2299
To: Evelyn Edens
NLRB-FOIA-00010281
Thanks,
Kevin
__
Kevin Flanagan
Phone: (202) 273-2938 Fax: (202) 273-1799
NLRB-FOIA-00010282
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
Thursday, October 14, 2010 2:09 PM
To:
Omberg, Bob
Subject:
Boeing memo
Attachments:
I didnt forget --
NLRB-FOIA-00010283
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010284
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010285
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010286
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010287
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010288
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010289
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010290
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010291
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010292
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010293
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010294
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010295
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010296
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010297
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010298
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010299
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010300
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010301
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010302
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010303
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010304
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010305
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010306
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010307
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010308
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Omberg, Bob
Sent:
To:
Willen, Debra L
Subject:
RE: Boeing memo
Thanks!
To: Omberg, Bob
I didnt forget --
NLRB-FOIA-00010309
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Omberg, Bob
Sent:
Friday, October 15, 2010 10:29 AM
To:
Katz, Judy
Subject:
FW: Boeing memo for Monday GC agenda
Attachments:
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Katz, Judy
Read: 10/15/2010 11:18 AM
To: Omberg, Bob
I didnt forget --
NLRB-FOIA-00010310
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010311
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010312
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010313
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010314
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010315
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010316
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010317
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010318
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010319
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010320
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010321
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010322
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010323
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010324
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010325
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010326
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010327
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010328
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010329
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010330
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010331
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010332
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010333
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010334
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010335
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Monday, October 18, 2010 1:29 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Katz, Judy; Omberg, Bob
As work begins on 1,000th 767, what is the airplane's future? | KING5.com | Seattle Business
and Technology News
This article indicates that the surge line was not yet up and running as of Sept. 7, 2010.
http://www.king5.com/news/business/Boeing-starts-work-on-1000-767-102358284.html
NLRB-FOIA-00010336
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Just heard that Lafe
W illen, Debra L
Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:07 PM
Katz, Judy; Omberg, Bob
Boeing
Exemption 5
Boeing an opportunity to come in.
NLRB-FOIA-00010337
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Friday, October 22, 2010 2:31 PM
Omberg, Bob; Katz, Judy
Boeing Co.
I talked briefly to Rich Ahearn today and
Exemption 5
. The investigating attorney was not in today, so he wants to put off discussing this. But he will be in Washington
next week and wants to arrange a call then with us and the investigator.
NLRB-FOIA-00010338
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:20 AM
Omberg, Bob
FW : Link to SC Boeing articles
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:46 AM
Subject: FW: Link to SC Boeing articles
From: Ferguson, John H.
Subject: Link to SC Boeing articles
NLRB-FOIA-00010339
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
W ednesday, November 10, 2010 12:23 PM
Omberg, Bob
FW : Boeing Co.
DOC001.PDF
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:59 AM
Subject: Boeing Co.
I've been reviewing the Employer's position statements and exhibits.
Thought you would be interested in the attached e-mail -Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010340
NLRB-FOIA-00010341
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00010342
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Katz, Judy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Omberg, Bob; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject:
Boeing's South Carolina facility
Attachments:
1109001312.jpg
NLRB-FOIA-00010343
NLRB-FOIA-00010344
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:15 AM
To:
Subject:
FW: I know I told you so
Sorry about that
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 8:13 AM
Cc: Katz, Judy; Omberg, Bob
Subject: RE: I know I told you so
Could you please add Bob and Judy to these e-mails?
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-00010345
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Cc:
Subject:
RE: I know I told you so
A RED EYE from Chicago???
13th
NLRB-FOIA-00010346
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Boeing
DOC001.PDF
I've just finished reviewing the new book Miriam found entitled "Turbulence: Boeing and the
State of American Workers and Managers."
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010347
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010348
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010349
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010350
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010351
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010352
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010353
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010354
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010355
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Omberg, Bob
W ednesday, December 15, 2010 9:12 AM
Eddins, Rosalind Elaine
Roy, Christopher
RE: Ozburn-Hessey Logistics 26-CA-23497
Hi Rosalind & Chris sorry I didnt get back to you yesterday, but I was in meetings most of yesterday preparatory to
outside counsel coming in this morning on a big case (Boeing moving of unit work to South Carolina).
Nonresponsive
Nonresponsive
Thanks
Bob
Nonresponsive
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00010356
Recipient
Read
Eddins, Rosalind Elaine
Read: 12/15/2010 10:20 AM
Roy, Christopher
Read: 12/15/2010 9:13 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00010357
Microsoft Outlook
Nonresponsive
From: Omberg, Bob
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:12 AM
To: Eddins, Rosalind Elaine
Cc: Roy, Christopher
Subject: RE: Ozburn-Hessey Logistics 26-CA-23497
Nonresponsive
Nonresponsive
Thanks
Bob
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010358
Nonresponsive
From: Omberg, Bob
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 8:12 AM
To: Eddins, Rosalind Elaine
Cc: Roy, Christopher
Subject: RE: Ozburn-Hessey Logistics 26-CA-23497
Nonresponsive
Nonresponsive
Thanks
Bob
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010359
Recipient
Read
Roy, Christopher
Read: 12/15/2010 12:55 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00010360
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Solomon, Lafe E.
Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Katz, Judy; Szapiro,
Miriam; Omberg, Bob; Baniszewski, Joseph
Boeing Co.
ADV.19-CA-32431.factsheet.Boeing.dlw.doc; ADV.19-CA-32431.Response2.Boeing.dlw.doc
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Deb Willen
NLRB-FOIA-00010361
Ex. 5, deliberative. A draft, not final.
NLRB-FOIA-00010362
NLRB-FOIA-00010363
NLRB-FOIA-00010364
NLRB-FOIA-00010365
NLRB-FOIA-00010366
NLRB-FOIA-00010367
NLRB-FOIA-00010368
NLRB-FOIA-00010369
NLRB-FOIA-00010370
NLRB-FOIA-00010371
NLRB-FOIA-00010372
NLRB-FOIA-00010373
NLRB-FOIA-00010374
NLRB-FOIA-00010375
NLRB-FOIA-00010376
NLRB-FOIA-00010377
NLRB-FOIA-00010378
NLRB-FOIA-00010379
NLRB-FOIA-00010380
NLRB-FOIA-00010381
NLRB-FOIA-00010382
NLRB-FOIA-00010383
NLRB-FOIA-00010384
NLRB-FOIA-00010385
NLRB-FOIA-00010386
NLRB-FOIA-00010387
NLRB-FOIA-00010388
NLRB-FOIA-00010389
NLRB-FOIA-00010390
NLRB-FOIA-00010391
NLRB-FOIA-00010392
NLRB-FOIA-00010393
NLRB-FOIA-00010394
NLRB-FOIA-00010395
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010396
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010397
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010398
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Omberg, Bob
Sent:
To:
Katz, Judy; Canas, Heather
Cc:
Willen, Debra L
Subject:
Boeing 19-CA-32431 advice merits case closed 4/11; 10j case also closed
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Katz, Judy
Read: 4/13/2011 11:05 AM
Canas, Heather
Read: 4/13/2011 10:02 AM
Willen, Debra L
The RAB memo went out in Boeing on 4/11/11; so the ILB case comes off deferral and is also closed 4/11 as a no 10j
now decision awaiting the ALJ hearing the memo has this final footnote:
At this time, we do not reach a decision on the Unions request for
preliminary injunctive relief.
The Region should reassess whether Section
10(j) relief is warranted after the case is tried before the
Administrative Law Judge.
In the meantime, the Region should put evidence
in the record regarding the chilling impact of Boeings violative
statements and conduct to support the notice-reading remedy.
This will
facilitate use of the administrative record to demonstrate in a subsequent
Section 10(j) proceeding that preliminary injunctive relief is just and
proper.
NLRB-FOIA-00010399
T hursday, O ctober 14, 2010- P age updated at 09:43 A N 1 -.
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 all206-464-31_13 or e-m ailresale@ seattletim es.com w ith your request.
JO H N LO K / T H E S E A T T LE T IM E S
T hree B oeing D ream liners sit near the F utu re of F ligh t A viation C ente r, w ith tw o slated fo r R oyal M aro c A irlines
and one b ound for Japa n A irlines. T he grow in g num b er of 78 7s parke d at P aine F ield w on't go an yw here u ntil the
F ede ral A viatio n A dm inistra tion certifies the new jet.
B o ein g 787s stack u p at P ain e F ield aw aitin g F A A
ap p ro val
B y D om in ic G ates
S eattle T im es aerospace reporter
T he edges of E verett's P aine F ield are turning into an overflow airplane parking lot as 787
D ream liners roll out of B oeing's assem bly plant. T he planes aren't flying anyw here soon: Instead
of engines, they have big yellow concrete blocks hanging from the w ing pylons.
O n W edne_sday, 1 3 p ro d u ctio n D re a m lin e rs a n d o n e flig h t-te st a irp la n e w e re p rke d a t P a in e
F ield. F our m ore com pleted planes are in storage. B y m id-F ebruary, at least 10 additional
D ream liners could roll out and need a tem porary parking space.
,---..
B oeing m ust continue to churn out the jets in anticipation of federal certification and the beginning
of deliveries in m id-F ebruary.
--.........
S ix flight-test airplanes are flying, and one of the production m odels is expected to fly as an add-
on to the flight-test program som etim e next m onth. T he other planes w ill likely sit there until the
F ederal A viation A dm inistration certifies the jet early next year.
W ith the B oeing flight line full, five D ream liners are now parked in unaccustom ed spots.
"..r
.. . 1 ......I........0 0 ..w
B oe ing has leased space fro m the a irp ort on the w est side of the run w ay outsid e the F uture o f
F light aviation center, w here tw o R oyal M aroc,787s and one Japan A irlines (JA L) 787 sit in a new
airplane-parking area. A nother tw o 787s, one for JA L and one for LA N A irlines of C hile, are
parked next to H ighw ay 526 outside B oeing's giant assem bly building.
NLRB-FOIA-00010400
In antidipation of the rush of 787s ahead of first delivery and to allow for expansion, S nohom ish
C ounty spent $5.5 m illion to build a taxiw ay around the north end of the airfield that connects to
the new ram p area adjacent to the Future of Flight.
NLRB-FOIA-00010401
Microsoft Outlook
non-responsive
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010402
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Moskowitz, Eric G.
Ahearn, Richard L.
Exemption 5
Eric
Eric,
Exemption 5
Rich
Rich:
Exemption 5
Eric
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010403
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent:
Thursday, June 03, 2010 10:08 AM
To:
Flanagan, Kevin P.
Cc:
Subject:
Re: Contact with Dominic Gates re: Boeing Co., 19-CA-32431
Will do. Thx.
Rich
-------------------------Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Sent: Thu Jun 03 09:28:40 2010
Subject: Contact with Dominic Gates re: Boeing Co., 19-CA-32431
Rich: Ive confirmed with Eric that he doesnt have a problem with you responding to Dominic Gatess
inquiry into the nature of the pending investigation.
__
Kevin P. Flanagan
1099 14th Street, N.W., Suite 8600
phone: (202) 273-2938
fax: (202) 273-1799
e-mail: Kevin.Flanagan@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-00010404
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Albertsen, Mary
Advice; Injunction Litigation Branch; Kearney, Barry J.; Katz, Judy
Baniszewski, Joseph; Ahearn, Richard L.; Pomerantz, Anne
Boeing Company, 19-CA-32431, Submission
ADV.19-CA-32431.Boeing.Request for Advice and Auth to Seek 10(j) Inj Relief.pdf
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
NLRB-FOIA-00010405
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010406
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010407
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010408
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010409
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010410
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010411
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010412
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010413
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010414
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010415
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010416
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010417
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010418
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010419
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010420
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010421
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010422
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010423
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010424
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010425
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010426
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010427
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010428
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010429
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010430
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010431
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010432
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010433
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010434
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010435
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010436
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010437
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010438
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010439
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010440
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010441
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010442
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010443
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010444
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010445
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010446
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010447
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010448
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010449
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010450
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010451
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010452
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010453
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010454
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010455
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010456
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010457
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010458
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010459
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010460
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010461
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010462
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010463
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010464
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010465
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010466
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010467
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010468
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010469
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010470
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010471
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010472
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010473
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010474
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010475
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010476
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010477
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010478
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010479
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Pomerantz, Anne
Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne
FW : Boeing Company, 19-CA-32431, Submission
FYI -- We are filed electronically.
Dianne,
Thanks for all your hard work in pulling this together.
Anne
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
NLRB-FOIA-00010480
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010481
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010482
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010483
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010484
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010485
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010486
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010487
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010488
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010489
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010490
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010491
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010492
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010493
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010494
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010495
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010496
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010497
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010498
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010499
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010500
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010501
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010502
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010503
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010504
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010505
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010506
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010507
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010508
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010509
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010510
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010511
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010512
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010513
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010514
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010515
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010516
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010517
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010518
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010519
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010520
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010521
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010522
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010523
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010524
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010525
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010526
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010527
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010528
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010529
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010530
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010531
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010532
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010533
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010534
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010535
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010536
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010537
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010538
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010539
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010540
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010541
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010542
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010543
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010544
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010545
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010546
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010547
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010548
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010549
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010550
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010551
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010552
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010553
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010554
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Pomerantz, Anne
Albertsen, Mary
Aaron,
Anne
To: Pomerantz, Anne
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
From: Advice
To: Albertsen, Mary
many there are?
Thanks -
Aaron Karsh
DAGC, Advice
NLRB-FOIA-00010555
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00010556
Recipient
Read
Advice
Karsh, Aaron
Read: 9/1/2010 6:52 PM
Albertsen, Mary
Read: 9/1/2010 5:15 PM
Todd, Dianne
Read: 9/2/2010 11:42 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00010557
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010558
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010559
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010560
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010561
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010562
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010563
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010564
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010565
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010566
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010567
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010568
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010569
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010570
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010571
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010572
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010573
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010574
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010575
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010576
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010577
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010578
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010579
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010580
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010581
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010582
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010583
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010584
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010585
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010586
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010587
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010588
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010589
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010590
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010591
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010592
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010593
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010594
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010595
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010596
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010597
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010598
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010599
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010600
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010601
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010602
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010603
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010604
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010605
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010606
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010607
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010608
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010609
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010610
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010611
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010612
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010613
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010614
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010615
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010616
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010617
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010618
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010619
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010620
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010621
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010622
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010623
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010624
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010625
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010626
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010627
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010628
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010629
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pomerantz, Anne
Lundgren, Cynthia A
Aaron,
Anne
Cc: Albertsen, Mary
Aaron,
Anne
To: Pomerantz, Anne
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
From: Advice
To: Albertsen, Mary
many there are?
NLRB-FOIA-00010630
Thanks -
Aaron Karsh
DAGC, Advice
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00010631
Recipient
Read
Advice
Read: 9/2/2010 4:59 PM
Karsh, Aaron
Read: 9/2/2010 4:57 PM
Lundgren, Cynthia A
Read: 9/3/2010 10:52 AM
Read: 9/2/2010 6:22 PM
Todd, Dianne
Read: 9/2/2010 4:52 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
Read: 9/2/2010 4:47 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00010632
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Karsh, Aaron
Pomerantz, Anne
Lundgren, Cynthia A; W illen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
That should be ok, Anne -- but rather than me, please send them to Debra Willen - she, with Miriam Szapiro
supervising, has been assigned to the case.
Aaron
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:47 PM
Cc: Lundgren, Cynthia A
Aaron,
Anne
Cc: Albertsen, Mary
Aaron,
Anne
To: Pomerantz, Anne
NLRB-FOIA-00010633
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
From: Advice
To: Albertsen, Mary
many there are?
Thanks -
Aaron Karsh
DAGC, Advice
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
NLRB-FOIA-00010634
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pomerantz, Anne
Karsh, Aaron
Will do. Thanks.
From: Karsh, Aaron
To: Pomerantz, Anne
Cc: Lundgren, Cynthia A; Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Aaron
Aaron,
Anne
Cc: Albertsen, Mary
Aaron,
Anne
NLRB-FOIA-00010635
To: Pomerantz, Anne
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
From: Advice
To: Albertsen, Mary
many there are?
Thanks -
Aaron Karsh
DAGC, Advice
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00010636
Recipient
Read
Karsh, Aaron
Read: 9/2/2010 5:03 PM
Lundgren, Cynthia A
Read: 9/3/2010 10:52 AM
Willen, Debra L
Read: 9/3/2010 8:04 AM
Szapiro, Miriam
Ahearn, Richard L.
Read: 9/2/2010 5:13 PM
Read: 9/2/2010 6:23 PM
Todd, Dianne
Read: 9/2/2010 6:26 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00010637
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Omberg, Bob
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 were sure 10j will come up, we just
wanted to know if in fact the surge line at Everett was actually up and running producing 3 planes a month [at the time of
your memo it sounded like it was still being prepared/under construction).
Thanks
Bob
NLRB-FOIA-00010638
Microsoft Outlook
Ahearn, Richard L.
Pomerantz, Anne
Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne
Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Anne,
Just a reminder...during your many hours of free time next week, please consider the
concerns from Advice re.
Exemption 5
Many thanks!
Rich
--------------------------
NLRB-FOIA-00010639
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pomerantz, Anne
Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne
RE: Boeing Interim Draft Order Revisions
Works for me.
To: Pomerantz, Anne; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne
Subject: Boeing Interim Draft Order Revisions
Your thoughts?
R.
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00010640
Recipient
Read
Ahearn, Richard L.
Read: 11/2/2010 3:37 PM
Read: 11/3/2010 11:37 AM
Todd, Dianne
NLRB-FOIA-00010641
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Estep, Susan C.
Sent:
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.; Pomerantz, Anne; Kobe, James; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne;
Subject:
The Boeing Company, 19-CA-32431
Attachments:
ADV.19-CA-32431.Boeing Response 2 Boeing dlw.doc
Perkins, Victoria
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00010642
Advice Memorandum
DATE:
April 11, 2011
S.A.M.
TO:
Region 19
FROM:
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
line.
activity.
the agreement.

NLRB-FOIA-00010643
Case 19-CA-32431
- 2 -


FACTS

this Agreement[.]
ten employees.

Section 21.7
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00010644
Case 19-CA-32431
- 3 -


In

For example,




strike.

is a big deal[.]

NLRB-FOIA-00010645
Case 19-CA-32431
- 4 -
strike zone[.]


Kiga
above.
summit in Chicago.

IAM representatives

This was the first
ended.
1 In his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
2
Union had struck.

in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
NLRB-FOIA-00010646
Case 19-CA-32431
- 5 -
future strikes.

Doug Kight.
labor relations.

At a subsequent
supplier issues.

IAM

Boeing agreed to

customers.

During August,
NLRB-FOIA-00010647
Case 19-CA-32431
- 6 -

Meanwhile, the
assembly line.



The Union said

At the end of the


On September

But truthfully, it
NLRB-FOIA-00010648
Case 19-CA-32431
- 7 -

So weve become an
reliable supplier.
do.
weeks.

Carolina.
on October 1.

The Union

In

The Union
control.

When a Union
would get more.

NLRB-FOIA-00010649
Case 19-CA-32431
- 8 -

The Union

Also,
Carolina.
negotiations.


Conner


committee.
generation product.

Indeed, the

get back to him.
NLRB-FOIA-00010650
Case 19-CA-32431
- 9 -

We would obviously


...
And so some of the
Sound.

Our customers
couple of weeks.

Michalski explained
of conduct.
not respond.

He wanted

Keating did not
their State.

On
seven years.
NLRB-FOIA-00010651
Case 19-CA-32431
- 10 -

In a press

The managers were

line.


The
our customers eyes.


customers.
NLRB-FOIA-00010652
Case 19-CA-32431
- 11 -
Jim Albaugh.

The

history.
haul.
with the union.

of wages.
Charleston.

... And


NLRB-FOIA-00010653
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -

It was that
three years.
schedule.

Approximately 1,740
approximately 60%.
ACTION


Then, when Boeing

It also
election.
years.
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00010654
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
the Union.



Nor could Boeing
months.
problems.

activity.
rights.

NLRB-FOIA-00010655
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -

The Court


supplier strategy.9
plant.
employment.10
activity.12
Ibid.
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
See id. at 520.
10
See id. at 520-21.
11
See id. at 521.
12
See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00010656
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
date.13

Thus, telling

unlawful threats.17
13
14
th
mem. 50 F.3d 1037 (11
1997).
15
Aelco Corp., 326 NLRB 1262, 1265 (1998).

See also Dorsey
th
part 233 F.3d 831 (4
16
311 NLRB at 1200.

17
unionized).
18
Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00010657
Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -

An employer may
to predicting

Some statements

Others were
testifies.21

And statements
(1)

During the call,
Sound.22
(2)

The
19
20
consequences).
21
22
23
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00010658
Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -
(3)
strikes.25
(4)
activity.26
II.

Instead of
24
to employees.
25

If
26
NLRB-FOIA-00010659
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -

Future work
desirable 787 jobs.

layoffs.
layoffs.
implemented.

In


its nonunion plant.

employees.30
27
28
Ibid.
29
th
Cir. 1990).
30
See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00010660
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
have performed.




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

See also
32
33
34
35
NLRB-FOIA-00010661
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
activity.36
strike.
strike.38

And the Board has
right to strike.
36
37
380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38
See id. at 283-85.
39
See id. at 284.
40
See ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00010662
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
substantial.42


Boeing has

The substantial

In addition, Boeing
Washington.

In
striking.

th
41
See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
42
Cir.
See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
43
NLRB-FOIA-00010663
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent.44
rights.45



the employees.46
employee rights.47
Paper.

Second, Boeings

position.
44
228, 231 (1963).

th
(4
Cir. 2000).
45
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
46
47

See also
NLRB-FOIA-00010664
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -


And the many
with the union.48


Section 8(a)(3).
48
49
NLRB-FOIA-00010665
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
subject.
A.

Alternatively, the

unit jobs.54
50
51
52
Ibid.
53
54
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00010666
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
bargaining unit.55
an expanded unit.56
jobs.57

Even

The work
unit employees.


In fact,
escalating.
55
56
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
57
134 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998).

NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
58
59
NLRB-FOIA-00010667
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009.
Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
B.

The Board will

In interpreting

This
60
61
See id. at 812, fn. 19.
62
64
See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00010668
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
contract.66
agreement.




65
Id. at 1260.
66
Id. at 1262.
67
68
th
Cir.
NLRB-FOIA-00010669
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -

also lacks merit.


Absent
modifications.71
69

70
71
NLRB-FOIA-00010670
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
rights.72


At present,

Thus, the
72
the Act).
73
1093 (1996).
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00010671
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.J.K.
ROFs - 9
74

The Region should

In the

This will
NLRB-FOIA-00010672
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Sunday, April 17, 2011 2:19 PM
Kearney, Barry J.
Complaint
Ex. 5 Deliberative
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00010673
NLRB-FOIA-00010674
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010675
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010676
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010677
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010678
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010679
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010680
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010681
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010682
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010683
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010684
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010685
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010686
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010687
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010688
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010689
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010690
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010691
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00010692
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent:
To:
Pomerantz, Anne
Subject:
FW: Boeing Co.
Attachments:
ADV.19-CA-32431.Complaint.Boeing.4-18-11.doc
Cc: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing Co.
Rich
Attached is a marked-up version of the Regions draft complaint with our changes. I fear that Ive messed up the
formatting, so someone will need to fix that.
Please let us know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Deb Willen
NLRB-FOIA-00010693
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010694
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010695
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010696
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010697
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010698
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010699
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010700
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010701
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010702
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010703
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010704
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010705
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010706
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010707
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010708
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Pomerantz, Anne
Sent:
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
RE: Boeing Co.
Attachments:
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Ahearn, Richard L.
Read: 4/18/2011 3:40 PM
Here is our revision. Ill scan in the contracts two pages and send them over.
To: Pomerantz, Anne
Subject: FW: Boeing Co.
Cc: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing Co.
Rich
Thanks,
Deb Willen
NLRB-FOIA-00010709
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010710
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010711
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010712
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010713
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010714
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010715
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010716
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010717
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010718
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010719
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent:
To:
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Willen, Debra L
Cc:
Pomerantz, Anne
Subject:
Boeing Co.
Attachments:
Pleaae see::
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010720
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010721
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010722
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010723
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010724
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010725
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010726
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010727
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010728
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010729
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010730
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Pomerantz, Anne
Sent:
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
Attachments:
Importance:
High
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Ahearn, Richard L.
Read: 4/18/2011 7:34 PM
Assuming you are alright with it.
Anne P. Pomerantz
NLRB-FOIA-00010731
e Ch
Exemption 5
e Ch
NLRB-FOIA-00010732
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010733
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010734
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010735
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010736
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010737
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010738
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010739
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010740
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010741
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent:
To:
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Cc:
Pomerantz, Anne
Subject:
Attachments:
Importance:
High
I have a few other comments Ill send later tonight.
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00010742
e Ch
Exemption 5
e Ch
NLRB-FOIA-00010743
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010744
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010745
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010746
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010747
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010748
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010749
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010750
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010751
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010752
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise; Finch, Peter G.; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd,
Dianne
FW : boeing operations in s.c.
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 7:40 AM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
Cc: Wagner, Anthony R.
Subject: boeing operations in s.c.
do business there:
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00010753
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ex. 6, 7(C)
W ednesday, June 22, 2011 11:53 AM
Pomerantz, Anne
Re: Trying to Contact you
Anne,
Please leave a message as to what you are interested in if I am unavailable.
Ex. 6, 7(C)
Thanks.
Ex. 6, 7(C)
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail.
"Pomerantz, Anne" <Anne.Pomerantz@nlrb.gov> wrote:
Ex. 6, 7(C)
I was reading in our
Ex. 6, 7(C)
magazine about your work at the
I am the
Ex. 6, 7(C)
Regional Attorney for the National Labor Relations Board in Seattle, Washington. We are currently litigating a case
against Boeing. I am interested in speaking with you, but was unable to get through on the phone number listed in your
Ex. 6, 7(C)
. Please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Thank you.
Anne Pomerantz
Regional Attorney
Region 19, NLRB
915 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98174
206-220-6311
NLRB-FOIA-00010754
Microsoft Outlook
Pomerantz, Anne
Ahearn, Richard L.
greatest hits ??
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Nonresponsive
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10
(11
(12
(13
(14
(15
the space.
Anne P. Pomerantz
NLRB-FOIA-00010755
NLRB-FOIA-00010756
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Pomerantz, Anne
RE: greatest hits ??
Thx.
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 10:23 AM
Subject: greatest hits ??
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Nonresponsive
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
NLRB-FOIA-00010757
(15
Nonresponsive
the space.
Anne P. Pomerantz
NLRB-FOIA-00010758
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
David Campbell [campbell@workerlaw.com]
Pomerantz, Anne
Now, you asked specifically about one decision that was made by the National Labor Relations Board, or the NLRB,
and this relates toBoeing. Essentially, the NLRB made a -- a finding that Boeing had not followed the law in making a
decision to move a plant. And, you know, it's an independent agency. It's going before a judge. So I don't want to
get into the details of the case. I don't know all the facts. That's going to be up to a judge to decide.
What I do know is this: that as a general proposition, companies need to have the freedom to relocate -- they
have to follow the law, but that's part of our system. And if they're choosing to relocate here in the United States,
that's a good thing. And what it doesn't make -- what -- what I think defies common sense would be a notion that we
would be shutting down a plant or laying off workers because labor and management can't come to a sensible
agreement.
So my hope is, is that even as this thing is working its way through, everybody steps back for a second and says:
Look, if jobs are being created here in the United States, let's make sure that we're encouraging that. And we can't
afford to have labor and management fighting all the time, at a time when we're competing against Germany and
China and other countries that want to sell goods all around the world. And obviously, the air -- airplane industry is
an area where we still have a huge advantage. I want to make sure that we keep it.
Thanks, Dave
Phone (206)257-6001: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
NLRB-FOIA-00010759
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pomerantz, Anne
Ahearn, Richard L.
unofficial transcript of Obama's remarks
Now, you asked specifically about one decision that was made by the National Labor Relations Board, or the NLRB,
and this relates to Boeing. Essentially, the NLRB made a -- a finding that Boeing had not followed the law in making a
decision to move a plant. And, you know, it's an independent agency. It's going before a judge. So I don't want to
get into the details of the case. I don't know all the facts. That's going to be up to a judge to decide.
What I do know is this: that as a general proposition, companies need to have the freedom to relocate -- they
have to follow the law, but that's part of our system. And if they're choosing to relocate here in the United States,
that's a good thing. And what it doesn't make -- what -- what I think defies common sense would be a notion that we
would be shutting down a plant or laying off workers because labor and management can't come to a sensible
agreement.
So my hope is, is that even as this thing is working its way through, everybody steps back for a second and says:
Look, if jobs are being created here in the United States, let's make sure that we're encouraging that. And we can't
afford to have labor and management fighting all the time, at a time when we're competing against Germany and
China and other countries that want to sell goods all around the world. And obviously, the air -- airplane industry is
an area where we still have a huge advantage. I want to make sure that we keep it.
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00010760
Recipient
Read
Ahearn, Richard L.
Read: 6/29/2011 5:55 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00010761
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Frankl, Joseph F.
Purcell, Anne G.
Baniszewski, Joseph; Posner, Charles
D-IV Top Issues for GC
D-IV Top Issues for GC.doc
NLRB-FOIA-00010762
Non-Responsive
Region 19 Seattle and Subregion 36 Portland (Rich Ahearn)
Non-Responsive
and an imminent high-profile Advice submission involving Boeing Aircrafts
decision to transfer one of two 787 Dreamliner assembly lines to a new plant
in South Carolina.
NLRB-FOIA-00010763
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010764
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010765
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010766
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
TO:

Division of Advice
DATE:
May 25, 2010
Eric G. Moskowitz, Assistant General Counsel
FROM:
Region 19, Seattle, WA
SUBJECT:
Boeing Company
Case 19-CA-32431
This Region is currently investigating charge 19-CA-32431 filed by the IAM&AW against
The Boeing Company. As part of the investigation, the assigned Board Agent is
seeking a video tape from the Seattle Times newspaper. As CHM 11770.4 requires
clearance from Headquarters prior to the issuance of an investigative subpoena where
the subpoena seeks evidence from a member of the press to elicit testimony relating to
information gained in his or her professional capacity or requiring the production of
materials secured as a result of news gathering activities, I am submitting this request.
The Employer, a manufacturer of airplanes, announced in October 2009 that it would be
placing a second assembly line for the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina at its non-
union facility instead of at its union-represented facility in Everett, Washington where the
first assembly line is located. The charge alleges, among other items, that the
Employer placed the second line in South Carolina in retaliation for the unit employees
In March 2010, a local reporter for the Seattle Times newspaper video-taped his
interview with Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. In that three-part
interview, Mr. Albaugh states Boeings reasons for placing the second line in South
Carolina labor strife and increased wages. Thus, the Region seeks possession of the
video as it contains direct statements from a Boeing official regarding Boeings reasons
for placing the second line in S. Carolina.
We requested the video from the Seattle Times, which is available for purchase at $35
for each of three tapes, but the following restrictions were placed on the use of the video
under those circumstances.
NLRB-FOIA-00010767
Case 19-CA-32431
-2-
May 25, 2010
Video is provided to you as is for your personal use only and may not be copied, reproduced, distributed. broadcast, displayed,
sold, licensed or otherwise exploited for any other purpose whatsoever.
As such, we wish to subpoena the video tape in order to not be limited by the
newspapers use restrictions.
Please advise.
R. L. A.
cc:
Joe Baniszewski, Deputy AGC
Division of Operations Management
NLRB-FOIA-00010768
M em orandum
TO :
DATE:
M a y 25, 2 010
FR O M :
S U B JE C T :
B oeing C om pany
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
NLRB-FOIA-00010769
C ase 1 9-C A -32431
M ay 25 ,2 0 1 0
-2-
P lease advise.
R . L. A .
cc:
NLRB-FOIA-00010770
Page I of I
null
(A 7vC A TIO N W EEK
00
I.m Click i _ Print
B M ichael M echarn
T he first steel colum n for B oeing's C harleston, S.C ., 787 final as.,
line has been erected o n a construction site next door to w here th,
com pany m akes and assem bles com posite fuselage sections for t]
jet.
T he 1.2 m illion-sq.-ft. building is expected to open in July 2011.
production aircraft is to roll out in the first quarter 2012. B oeing:
90% of the planV s contract d ollars are going to S outh C arolind
com panies.
B oeing also plans to refurbish parts of its E verett, W ash., w idebody aircraftfactory to include a surge lin,
provide supplem ental assem bly capacity for the 787 program . W hen the South C arolina factory com es or
w ill give B oeing the capacity to operate three final assem 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.
B oeing 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 ill help ensure that itsuffers "no disruptions" in
m anufacturing, B oeing says.
T he com pany originally established its presence in South C arolina indirectly five years ago, w hen V ough
A ircraft and A lenia A eronautica built factories adjacent to the city's airport in N orth C harleston to suppl
and center fuselage sections.
B ut B oeing ended up buying both factories to relieve the suppliers of financial pressures they felt as the
schedule slipped by m ore than tw o years.
B oeing uses a fleet of m odified 747 transports to haul w ing and fuselage sections to its final a ssem bly lin
W hen its C harleston operation begins, som e fuselage sections w ill sim ply be rolled next door to feed its J
assem bly line, w hile others w ill be flow n to E verett to feed the original line.
C opyright ? 2010 A viation W eek, a d ivision of T he M cG raw -H ill C om panies.
All rights reserved, T erm s of U se IErivac R qU L gy
NLRB-FOIA-00010771
BOEING COMPANY
19-CA-32431
INDEX OF CITATIONS
1. )
Mc Daniel Electric, 313 NLRB 126, 127
2. )
Gitano Group, Inc., 308 NLRB 1172
3. )
NLRB v. Wooster Division of Borg-Warner Corp., 356 US 342, 349
4. )
Arrow Automotive Industries, Inc., 853 F.2d 223, 231-32
5. )
NLRB v. International Harvester Co., 618 F.2d 85, 87
6. )
NLRB v. Transmarine Navigation Corp., 380 F.2d 933, 939
7. )
West Virginia Baking Co., 299 NLRB 306, 313
8. )
General Motors Corp., 191 NLRB 951, 952
9. )
Georgia Power Co., 325 NLRB 420, 420-21
10.)
Connecticut Light and Power Co., 271 NLRB 766
11.)
Chevron Chemical Co., 261 NLRB 44, 45
12.)
Salem College, 261 NLRB 327
13.)
The Lange Co., 222 NLRB 558, 563
14.)
Whitesell Corp., 352 NLRB 1196, 1197
15.)
Day Automotive Group, 348 NLRB 1257, 1262-63
16.)
Gissel Packing Co., 395 US 575
17.)
David Van Os & Associates, 346 NLRB 804, 806
18.)
Tri-Cast, 274 NLRB 377
19.)
Crown Cork & Seal Company, 36 F.3d 1130
20.)
American Ship Building Co., 380 US 300, 311
21.)
DaimlerChrysler Corp., 344 NLRB 1324, 1327
22.)
Pollock Electric, 349 NLRB 708, 709
23.)
Northeast Iowa Telephone Co., 346 NLRB 465, 475-76
24.)
FES, 331 NLRB 9
25.)
Radio Officers Union of Commercial Telegraphers Union, AFL, v.
26.)
NLRB v. Great Dane Trailers, 338 US 26, 33-34
27.)
NLRB v. Brown, 380 US 278
28.)
Griffith-Hope Company, 275 NLRB 487
29.)
Harter Equipment, 280 NLRB 597
30.)
Sun Transport, 340 NLRB 70
31.)
American Ship Builders, 380 US at 313
NLRB, 347 US 17, 42-43
NLRB-FOIA-00010772
10
11
INTERVIEW OF
12
JIM ALBAUGH
13
14
BY
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010773
(Beginning of proceedings.)
But, you know, I feel impelled to ask some hard
questions on behalf of basically the community in
Washington
Sure.
as a result of last year. Last year, we had the
And then subsequently, you announced that all 787 work
10
from the Puget Sound area would be duplicated
11
elsewhere. So I think the local community is clearly
12
worried about Boeings future here. And thats
13
something thats followed on from, you know, you moved
14
the headquarters in 2001 and there have been repeated
15
threats that future work might not be here. So last
16
year seemed to really increase that feeling. So what
17
is Boeings commitment to Washington state?
18
Well this is the headquarters of Boeing Commercial
19
Aircraft and it will be, I think, for probably
20
forever. The issue last fall was really about, you
21
know, how we could ensure production stability and how
22
we could ensure that we were competitive over the long
23
haul. And we had some very productive discussions with
24
the union. And unfortunately, we just didnt come to
25
an agreement where we felt we could ensure production
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010774
stability. And read that is 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. Now its my hope, and I
will tell you, Dominique, you know my preference is to
do the work here in the future. But well do work here
if we can make sure that we have the stability of the
10
production lines and that we can be competitive over
11
the long haul. And those are the two things that I
12
think I have to ensure, you know, our customers, and I
13
have to ensure, also, the stockholders of the Boeing
14
Company.
15
So looking out into the future, now that you have
16
decided on having this other plant in Charleston, how
17
do you see the geographic shape of Boeing and the
18
balance there between those two bicoastal plants in
19
the future?
20
Well I guess I dont really see it as a balance. You
21
know, clearly the center of gravity is here in Puget
22
Sound and will continue to be here in Puget Sound. And
23
Im very hopeful as we, you know, continue to have
24
discussions with the union that, you know, well be
25
able to come up with ways of being competitive here,
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010775
and we can come up with ways of ensuring that were
through those two hurdles, were going to be doing
discussions of moving any work thats currently here
out of Puget Sound.
Right. But, of course, its future work that people
10
Yeah. Ill tell you, the commitment that I can give
11
12
here. But we have to ensure ourselves that were going
13
14
15
You know, if we dont, were not going to be selling
16
any airplanes. And I think thats the worst outcome
17
for Puget Sound, and thats the worst outcome for the
18
company.
19
Well so when the time comes to announce the launch of
20
21
years, that you would say right, youre going to
22
23
we going are the people of this state once again
24
25
U.S. to win it?
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010776
You know, I guess I dont really view it as a
competition.
I dont think it was. It was not a competition. What
it was, was again, weve had strikes three out of
the last four times weve had a labor negotiation with
the IAM. And Im not blaming that on the IAM. I mean
10
improve the relationship that we have. And weve got
11
12
that every three years theyre not going to have a
13
14
now that are telling us that in contracts they dont
15
16
thats not a situation thats good for us. Its not a
17
good situation for them. Its not a good situation for
18
labor. And if one projects out another 15 years, were
19
20
well be competing against the Europeans, the
21
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010777
to compete.
In saying that it wasnt a competition, clearly youre
referring to the Charleston decision last year. But I
Yeah. Well I wasnt involved in that one and
10
I dont think I would if Im involved, Im not going
11
to have a competition like that, I can tell you that.
12
13
14
15
16
17
in the airplanes.
18
Just on the to dwell on the Charleston expansion for
19
20
expense and risk attached to doing all that there is
21
is something thats hard to justify. Does it really
22
23
Yeah. Theres no question that whenever you go to a
24
green field site, theres risk involved. At the same
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010778
back last I guess it was the fall of 2008, I mean
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And, Jim, the flip side of that
Sound.
10
Yeah, absolutely. Again, my first my first
11
12
13
14
manufacturing and how could we ensure that labor costs
15
werent going to continue to escalate.
16
Do you think a chance was missed to I mean you had a
17
18
strike.
19
Yeah.
20
You had a big relationship with the union problem.
21
22
23
Yeah. You know
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010779
were going to do everything we can to work with the
union to make sure that we dont have another
relationship with the union where we dont have to
magicians. They do things that I dont think any labor
10
11
12
now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now. But were
13
not none of us are going to have jobs if we continue
14
15
you know, every three years.
16
So to sum up the Charleston decision lets be clear,
17
the Charleston decision, it wasnt about Washingtons
18
19
It was not.
20
21
22
It
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010780
actually do deliver. And we have lost our customers
after.
Well lets just move on to talk about the union in a
9
10
11
Poseidon (indiscernible interrupted)
12
Yeah, yeah.
13
you talked about, you praised the men and women of
14
15
Yep. Theyre fabulous.
16
17
that was in July. And then in the fall it seemed
18
like a slap in the face to the people here to say well
19
were going to build it somewhere were going to
20
21
Yeah, you see, I guess I dont see it as a slap in the
22
face, Dominique. I mean I think that if we dont have
23
a company, nobody has jobs. And if we cant meet the
24
25
of aircraft, were not going to be in the business. If
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010781
10
than the competition, were not going to be selling
Charleston, you know, I believe that were going to
10
average unit price of an airplane should go down as a
11
12
13
Charleston.
14
But is how big a component of that average cost of
15
an airplane is actually labor? Its not a big chunk of
16
it, is it?
17
Its not a big chunk. Its and Im not going to give
18
you the exact percentage. Its a significant
19
percentage. Its less than half, certainly. But again,
20
21
22
business plans based on assuming theyre going to get
23
delivery on certain dates, and when they dont get
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010782
11
competitive world were in, much more competitive than
its been to date. And weve enjoyed a duopoly here.
you know, when youre in a duopoly as we are, and
youre in second place, youre in last place. I dont
10
11
failure to reach agreement resulting in that decision
12
13
And blame that on both of us, the fact that we didnt
get there.
14
15
Well just forgetting about blame, Im wondering well
16
let me ask about first of all, what is your attitude
17
to unions?
18
Ive always gotten along great with unions. Ive
19
worked with them. Ive walked the concrete with them.
20
Ive listened to them. Ive watched them do, you know,
21
amazing things relative to productivity. Ive seen
22
23
24
25
777 where theyre making huge strides relative to
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010783
12
productivity.
Well thats the workforce. But the union itself,
You know, where theres a where there is an issue
with the union, its thats a reflection on
10
11
12
with some of the leadership of the IAM. And we have
13
14
forward, I hope theres more things we agree on,
15
16
shape unless were selling airplanes.
17
18
19
Well but given what happened last year, I mean youre
20
21
Yeah.
22
And youve got all the youve got the poison that
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010784
13
the IAM understands that were entering a global
economy, global competition. Its going to be more
promises that we make to our customers I mean those
not we have a company and whether or not were selling
10
11
Well obviously youd like a better relationship with
12
IAM, and you would hope to achieve it. But does the
13
14
15
to be cheaper?
16
17
here. You look at all the tooling that weve invested
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cant continue to go up at the dramatic fashion we
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010785
14
have in the past.
Id also like to point to certain irony. The tanker
competition is (indiscernible) now and youve got
We do.
Yeah.
10
paying American jobs, theyre contrasting it to non-
11
12
Congressional support largely well not just the
13
union, but theres a big element
14
Yeah.
15
that they those Democratic politicians who are
16
union supported, thats a big element. And so the
17
18
the union?
19
Weve got 60,000 no, weve got 75,000 jobs here in
20
Puget Sound. And were going to have, you know, tens
21
of thousands of jobs for years to come. Were talking
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010786
15
that this is the center of gravity. And thats not
going to change. Now the 767 airplane, in its
10
the future, what weve already youve agreed with me
11
that the business climate here wasnt a particular
12
13
14
downturn, are in terrible financial trouble
15
16
17
18
in terms of
19
20
21
22
Right.
23
But again, the overriding factor was not the business
24
climate, and it was not the wages were paying people
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010787
16
company.
Youre on the companys executive consult. There is
9
10
11
12
that decision?
13
14
15
16
17
two things that I needed, as I mentioned, and we
18
couldnt get those two things done. And not getting
19
those two things done, I made the recommendation, that
20
21
Charleston.
22
last question.
23
24
25
Dominique.
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010788
17
So there are there has been talk here for many
Boeing doesnt like us anymore. Can we as a final
question on that topic, is that put a nail in that?
You can put that one to bed. I mean weve got, you
know, a terrific workforce here. Weve got, you know,
of knowledge about building airplanes more than any
place that Ive ever been. Weve got a talented
10
11
know, want to live. This is where we want to be. Weve
12
13
and I hope its one that continues for a long, long
14
time to come. Again, I preface it by or I caveat it
15
16
17
18
19
20
rosier?
21
I sure hope it does. Thats you know, Im going to
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010789
18
Joe Sutter, (indiscernible interrupted)
Yeah.
people associated with the old style of Boeing.
Yep.
10
leaders to in a move that was spun as harking back
11
to the early days of when (indiscernible) companies
12
13
Yep.
14
So I want to ask you. I mean, youre an engineer.
15
Yeah.
16
reinstate the primacy of engineering within BCA?
17
18
19
engineering and less by the what Ill call the
20
21
22
23
outsourcing decisions were we did not consider the
24
extent the risk that wed take on by going outside.
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010790
19
You know, bringing the senior advisory group in a
think, right after you know, 2000, 2001, because
they didnt see us developing any new programs. And we
know, going into the 787 program, we didnt have a
10
11
12
about 747 and the 787 is were training a whole new
13
14
15
16
those icons of the Boeing company, were getting the
17
18
experience. And theyre people that I listen to.
19
Theyre people I want to get my team in front of so
20
21
benefit of the things that theyve done right and the
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010791
20
the chief engineer. You didnt do anything without
getting the chief engineer on board. And if you didnt
engineer into engineering does that.
10
11
12
13
14
Yeah. Well
15
adversarial with SPEEA?
16
17
Yeah, well, you know, I dont have all the history.
18
You probably know more about it than I do, Dominique,
19
but, you know, this place doesnt run without
20
engineers and it doesnt run without machinists. And I
21
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010792
21
Ive sat down with our new chief of engineering, you
those things? What is that IP that were going to do
hold close?
The fuselage, the composites, dont outsource those.
10
11
12
do. And those things that we need to do to hold onto
13
14
15
union of SPEEA and the IAM union, what are those
16
17
outsource too much.
18
The flight controls, you know, never
Yeah, well thats I definitely want to talk about
19
20
wings. But isnt it too late? Youve already
21
22
Well we have. Well, well build other airplanes.
23
24
25
Well I didnt say that. I didnt say that. Those are
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010793
22
Okay. Well actually you and Mr. McNerney have youve
And what youve said is youre going to draw the lines
differently. And thats the phrase that you used.
Yeah.
And Im wondering if you could just elaborate a little
understand its already happening with the 787-9, the
10
11
12
mean the wings are still being made in Japan.
13
Yeah.
14
15
16
interface. We didnt provide enough oversight to the
17
18
engineering and manufacturing. On the -9, weve pulled
19
20
21
22
Right.
23
So we now have control of some of the fuselage of the
24
25
and the -9. Those lines that were going to have to
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010794
23
redraw, were in the process of redrawing those right
And were in the process of defining those strategies
right now.
Mitsubishi build the wings in Japan, but you had them
10
11
I believe it is. Its not the same wing. The new wing
12
is its the same length, but its a stiffer wing and
13
its got carries more load. So its a different
14
wing. I think that theyre still doing the wing design
15
16
17
18
admission that it didnt work very well and that you
19
20
21
22
We paid for it.
23
Youve had two years delay. So isnt that an argument
24
for theres some surprise that despite that, Boeing
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010795
24
model is the one for the future. Youll draw the lines
slightly differently, but youll stick to that model.
Why when it didnt work so well?
Well
I mean its really easy in hindsight to second guess
10
thats very efficient. This is going to be an airplane
11
12
13
14
15
people that didnt have a lot of experience at it. We
16
didnt provide them the kind of oversight and support
17
18
19
better going forward? Well again, were going to
20
21
22
23
24
25
more but I think that if you talk to me, if you talk
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010796
25
to Jim McNerney, well both say that we moved up the
Well I think that strategy is, in part, connected with
including at IDS where you were leading, which was
integration.
Right. It was a little different at IDS. You see, we
10
this company does. At IDS, this whole idea of best of
11
12
13
didnt have any verticals. We werent vertically
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Well some people definitely saw that, if we can find
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010797
26
approach early in the stages, deciding the doing the
marketing analysis, deciding on the market
Yeah.
and architecting it. And of course, final assembling
Yeah.
At least it hasnt worked out quite like that, but
9
10
11
12
13
future or is that
14
You see, I you know, I would not subscribe to that.
15
16
17
pieces of intellectual property that nobody else in
18
19
20
21
there are other things, seats, galleys, some of the
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010798
27
youre doing is systems integration then how do you
10
11
12
of the future.
13
And too much of out that the engineers here didnt
14
15
include the wings?
16
17
as anybody in the world, and I think were
18
19
were building, what, I guess 62 wings a month. Thats
20
21
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010799
28
the same page. So Im just wondering, it does seem
needed changing and whats ahead?
Well I guess first of all, I didnt see that that
10
11
12
And we put them under Howard Chambers, somebody thats
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
upgrading the 777 or a brand new 777-size airplanes?
20
And thats why I asked Mike Bair to go focus on the
21
22
23
configuration of 787 correct, and hes very good at
24
that, and hes very analytical in his thinking. And I
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010800
29
program managers, they didnt change. We had a couple
10
11
12
13
14
off-site and Im a new guy on the block and I felt
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
is weve got to continue to add value to our
24
customers, thats why they keep coming back. We need
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010801
30
we talked about.
management thats specifically, I think, just to
manage projects it does seem that thats the
couple of years
You see, I
10
and they havent kept control of the programs.
11
Yeah, its interesting. I think that BCA is
12
13
programs. And I dont think anybody, you know, manages
14
15
that were doing 31.5 737s a month and we set a record
16
17
18
19
fact that we hadnt done a major development program
20
21
22
23
as opposed to being driven by you know, by the
24
25
risk.
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010802
31
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Jim, you might also want to
at IDS.
Yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And the program management is
really just another function and discipline.
Yeah. At IDS, we had 300 programs. And the vast
majority of the programs are development programs. You
know, an ABL program, thats all it is, is a
10
development program. The Space Station was a
11
development program that went for 10 years. The
12
13
14
were installing it. But, you know, how you do program
15
16
17
pretty well. And were trying to bring many of those
18
disciplines to the BCA side. At the same time, were
19
20
21
IDS side. So, I mean, theres great synergy within
22
this company. And, you know, one of things that I hope
23
24
of that.
25
Youve talked about potential competitors in the
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010803
32
future. Id like to move on and talk about China. I
believe youre making a second trip to China or have
you just made it?
I think Im going the last week of this month. Yeah.
Thats your second trip, right?
Yeah.
States itself, has an ambivalent view of Chinas
enormous growth. Its often portrayed as a potential
10
massive market. Its also portrayed as a potential
11
12
13
youre head of BCA and youre making trips to China to
14
15
16
17
18
Yeah.
19
20
21
22
23
the question is how do you, in the position youre in
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010804
33
China?
Well and Ill tell you, theres not a lot that the
know, got involved in. I think the only thing that I
10
11
dont worry a lot about things I cant control. What I
12
13
airlines in China. And were going to work very hard
14
15
big as ours, you know, within the next 20 years. Its
16
an economy that is going to need airplanes. Theyre
17
18
And were developing one here in the United States.
19
Theyre going to be buying about 200 airplanes a year
20
for the next 20 years. Its a big market for us.
21
Theyre going to be building their own airplanes. And
22
I have full confidence that theyll build a very good
23
24
theyll get it right. And I spent a lot of time in the
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010805
34
a difficult thing. Youve got to go from zero to
22,000 feet in 8.5 minutes 22,000 feet per second in
commitment to building commercial airplanes. Theyre
And theyre going to develop a good airplane over
10
time. So, you know, we have to we have to figure
11
out, and were working very hard on, what kind of a
12
13
14
15
16
jetliner that theyre developing? Its supposed to be,
17
I think, 180 seats approximately. Its supposed to
18
19
Boeing?
20
Well, theyre going to put some of the new engines on
21
them and, you know, theyre more efficient engines.
22
23
probably wont be, you know, perfect the first time
24
25
with the 737, yes.
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010806
35
one you know, the Boeing Company gets a premium for
for our customer. And thats one of the assignments
10
11
12
13
you know, towards the end of this decade. And its not
14
just the Chinese. Its also the Canadians with the C
15
Series. Its also Embraer who will have an airplane.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
tap into?
23
Youre not going to get the head of commercial
24
airplanes talking about Chinas military threat, you
25
know, Dominique. Ill leave again, Ill leave that
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010807
36
to the people in the Pentagon, and Ill leave that to
the policymakers in Washington, D.C. You know, you
think about China and the United States, you know, our
for the long haul. And you look at how far this
relationship has come, you know, over the last I
guess its 35 years since Nixon first went over there.
10
tightly entwined. Its not to say that we dont have
11
the periodic bump in the road. And, yes, were having
12
one of those right now. But I think theres a lot to
13
be lost on both sides if we dont have a good
14
relationship with China. And I think that China has a
15
lot of lose if they dont have a good relationship
16
with the United States.
17
You know, Bill Boeings first engineer was Chinese
18
born, Wong Tsoo. And its been noted before that for a
19
global company, Boeings executive ranks dont have
20
a surprising lack of diversity. Now I look, for
21
22
23
executive and president of BCA in India. But I dont
24
see that in China. Theres very few Chinese-American
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010808
37
were in Seattle, were on the Pacific Rim
Yeah.
and weve got a great Asian-American community here.
sell Boeing airplanes. How come you dont have more
such faces?
And it wont be long and well give you a call.
10
Stay tuned. Youll be the first person we call, okay?
Okay, thanks. Were running out of time so a few
11
12
13
14
15
leveraged that. You did it for the Poseidon and
16
Yeah.
17
(indiscernible) thats built in Renton. So you
18
installed all the militarys hardware inline on
19
20
Yeah.
21
Is that whats going to happen on tanker, if you win
it? Will you do that in Everett?
22
23
We will do as much as we can in Everett. Well make
24
all the structural modifications that we can. Well
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010809
38
doing business down. And thats what we plan on doing.
You know, Im very intrigued by that. You know, its
10
11
12
13
that we dont like. And, you know, I understand from
14
15
Northrop doesnt like. But its not a perfect RFP for
16
17
You know, I read that thing and, you know, I dont
18
19
Im assuming that (indiscernible) is going to bid.
20
21
company that should you win it this time, youve done
22
23
the competition?
24
25
I guess I dont understand. I dont think that theres
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010810
39
they came to the decision they came to. I mean lets
review the lets review the tape here. We had 98
five. There was no credit to be given for fuel offload
it was flawed. Thats why theyre doing the re-
10
11
back as early as the early 2000s, were
12
13
But the Congressional support that you have you, way
14
dont think theres been a competition that Ive been
15
16
17
18
And where they dont make their decision based on the
19
RFP, you know, companies have the opportunity to
20
protest, which we did, and in which we do very
21
22
One political issue thats come into the whole tanker
debate is WTO, and Id like to go to that now.
23
24
Yeah.
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010811
40
didnt change a thing. Nothing happened. And, you
theyre getting government money to help do it. So
whats the point? Where can these WTO suits go?
10
11
Well, you know, first of all youve got to remember,
12
Dominique, that we didnt bring the WTO suit. The
13
14
brought that suit.
15
They wouldnt have done so if you didnt want it.
16
17
18
illegal subsidies that were in violation of the WTO
19
rules. I mean thats why the lawsuit was brought. And
20
21
22
thats their the preliminary judgment that theyve
23
laid down.
24
Well certainly some people see it as politics
25
Well
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010812
41
tanker.
to block in part, it helps to try to block the
So, you know, were building the 787 the old fashioned
way. Were using our own money. On the A-330, you
subsidies of close to $6 billion. You know, thats a
significant advantage for them that we dont enjoy.
10
11
got. Its not there. And were competing. Were not
12
crying foul. Were going to do the best we can with
13
the proposal.
14
15
16
Boeing is accused of illegal subsidies (indiscernible
17
interrupted)?
18
19
the outcome. Of course then again, Dominique, I
20
21
time. As Ive told people, theres only one more one
22
23
24
25
You mentioned earlier in this conversation that being
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010813
42
dont want to be in last place. So since were
that how do you see that playing out in the next few
years?
thats going to start in 2012, 2013, you know, we
know, relative to airplane deliveries. We ought to
10
think, you know, longer term, its easy to get the
11
most orders and its easy to make the most deliveries.
12
13
Were not going to do that. If I look at, you know, 10
14
years from now, were going to have a brand new 47;
15
were going to have a brand new 87; were going to
16
17
airplane; and were going to have a major upgrade to
18
the 777 or were going to have a new 300 to 400
19
passenger airplane. I mean were going to have a whole
20
21
22
23
youre going to sell airplanes. And we should be
24
25
were going to be number one? Its because of those
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010814
43
replace me pretty quick. But its the collective
that we do. And theyre the ones that will make it
happen.
Theres an expectation of restraint today in corporate
10
executive bonuses. Boeing -- a lot of Boeings money,
11
12
youre laying off thousands of people right now, but
13
14
regular bonus for staying for switching jobs. How is
15
that justified (indiscernible interrupted).
16
No, they didnt make me any promises when I came here.
17
And I didnt ask the Board of the Comp Committee for
18
19
theyve done, but its not something that I asked them
20
21
22
Do you understand why it doesnt look good to workers
23
24
bonuses?
25
Well my job is to make sure that workers dont get
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010815
44
laid off. I mean I think that Ive got an unwritten
grow this place. And at the same time Im asking them
level of jobs at the same number that its at today.
And thats what I think my job is.
Okay. Im going to stop there.
10
Okay.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010816
45
1
2
complete transcript of Interview of Jim Albaugh,
transcribed by me from a copy of the digital sound
recording to the best of my knowledge and ability.
8
9
________________
_______________________________
Date
Gloria Schein
KRON ASSOCIATES
Anchorage, Alaska
99503
(907) 276-3554
NLRB-FOIA-00010817
Page I of I
T odd, D ianne
F rom :
D avid C am pbell [cam pbell@ w orkerlaw .com ]
S ent:
T o:
T odd, D ianne
C c:
Jude B ryan; K athy B arnard-, C arson G lickm an-F lora
S u b ject:
N ew s Info
A ttach m en ts: infoclip.pdf
A ttached is a copy o f w hat the B oeing N ew s C lips looks like daily on the B oeing internal w eb
ThanksDave
S incerely, D avid C am pbell
cam pbell@ w orkerlam conn
S chw erin C am pbell B arnard Iglitzin & Lavitt
18 W M ercer S uite 400
S eattle, W ashington 98119-3971
P hone (206)285-2828: FA X (206)378-4132
T his com m unication is protected by the attorney client and attorney w ork-product privileges. P lease do not copy, forw ard
orappend
6/9/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00010818
111owing N e'vs C lips,
O 'i
V 775K
E nter your B oeing em ail
address to receive N ew s
U p s by em ail and/or
m anage your account
W cA nesday, Ju n . 09, 2010
C lick the checkbox for each story you w ould like to display, print or em ail
then click:
r--B oeing S ays It's I
T l c 787 7)r -x'% ners
B loom berg
06/08/2010 -- F Susa ina P.1v
B oeing Co. received the first com pietk , secLion br its 23rd 787
'.-iQ the new com posite
D ream liner and is ready 1to resurn:

-! - ,
planes, after halting dc4.,-r:es m i
t r a m onth ago to let suppliers
get caught up.
E verett H erald
i..si ness brie's

F kF3
06/09/2010
:k s
'let; ra.;i
The 14/a/1 SU .,-etJournal

In a battle of superjuf,,ibl-,
--ld
additional A irbus
deal in G erriany'D eutscf ie I h a
,L rr
F Ern i
o
Sinjc;,W c,--
F!"o
By D anjc M ichaels
D u",-"s Em ir A es A irline ordered 32
L :;[, .inncjur -%d the $11.5 billion
flag carrier
dc, Jg 4
06/09/2010
B usiness Tinnes
zv
C -,1!
0(,!09/201.0
o, al
L,-
W eile 06/08/2010
06/08/201,0
R euters N ew s
'J
C '
NLRB-FOIA-00010819
Page I of I
T odd, D ianne
F rom :
S ent:
T o:
T odd, D ianne
C c:
C arson G lickm an-Flora; Jude B ryan; K athy B arnard
S ubject: R E: B oeing 19-C A -32431, w itnesses
W e're still looking but see this speech in w hich D eM int acknow ledges touring the im pact of the decert election.
w w w .youtube.com /w atch?v=Y 9dsA N O U nEA
ThanksDave
Sincerely, D avid C am pbell
cam P bell(q)w orkerlaw .com
Schw erin C am pbell B arnard Iglitzin & Lavitt
18 W M ercer Suite 400
P hone (206)285-282& FA X (206)378-4132
orappend.
F rom : T odd, D ianne [m ailto:D ianne.T odd@ nlrb.gov]
S en t: T uesday, June 08, 2010 4:31 PM
T o: D avid C am pbell
S u b ject: B oeing 19-C A -32431, w itnesses
D ave,
D uring the investigation, itcam e to light that Senator D eM int visited the V oughtp lant in 2009 after the
decertification petition w as filed and allegedly m ade com m ents to em ployees that becom ing non-
union w ould be an incentive for B oeing to place the 787 2nd line to C harleston. C an you present
w itnesses regarding this visit?
Thanks,
D cay
T 'od&
B oard A gent
N LRB, R egion 19
P h: 206-220-6319
F ax: 206-220-6305
6/9/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00010820
Page I of I
T odd, D ianne
F rom :
S ent:
T o:
T odd, D ianne
C c:
C arson G lickm an-Flora; Jude B ryan; K athy B arnard
S ubject: R E: B oeing 19-C A -32431, w itnesses
W e are w orking on this.
ThanksDave
Sincerely, D avid C am pbell
cam pbell@ w orkerlaw .com
Schw erin C am pbell B arnard Iglitzin & Lavitt
18 W M ercer Suite 400
P hone (206)285-2828: FA X (206)378-4132
orappend.
F rom : T odd, D ianne [m ailto:D ianne.T odd@ nlrb.gov]
S en t: T uesday, June 08, 2010 4 :31 PM
T o: D avid C am pbell
S u b ject: B oeing 19-C A -32431, w itnesses
D ave,
D uring the investigation, itcam e to light that Senator D eM int visited the V ought plant in 2009 after the
decertification petition w as filed and allegedly m ade com m ents to em ployees that becom ing non-
union w ould be an incentive for B oeing to place the 787 2nd line to C harleston. C an you present
w itnesses regarding this visit?
Thanks,
D6
T od&
B oard A gent
N LRB, R egion 19
P h: 206-220-6319
F ax: 206-220-6305
6/9/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00010821
M1C
@ o
Pr10poled 2008 (ontrac

tSixem ent
0 Between 1AM&AW Districts 24, 70 & 751
and Boeing
Y O U R N E G O T IA T IN G T E A M R E C O M M E N D S: A C C E P T
O ur U nion has delivered w hat few A m ericans have - econom ic certainty and quality benefits for the next four years. This
battle w as not just about m oney, but about ethics, integrity, and respect. E ach of you stood up and did your part to w in this
baffle. A s you k now negotiations are about give and take. T hese negotiations w ere very difficult as they alw ays are w ith this
C om pany. By any m easure, this contract proposal is a good offer. D id itget everything, no. H ow ever, w e m ade significant
gains w ith respect to job security and the ability to help guide this C om pany into the future.
All year w e heard m em bers say that the best w ages and benefits m ean nothing ifyou aren't on the payroll to collect them .
T hat is how im portant job security is. T his new offer stopped the C om pany from im plem enting their plan to expand v endors
throughout the factory. W e recaptured the scope of w ork

'-;-Jh,-_90_02_agreem ent and contained it to 787 final
assem bly (R em em ber since w e have already given up Ju

itallow ed to reclaim it or fightfor it
- w hich is w hy itw as so im portant to stop itbefore itexp(1

17 and LO U #2 provide job security
to over 5,000 m em bers that B oeing otherw ise could hav

U
Iitractors inside the factory gates.
T he econom ics in the new proposal contain im provem el

T he takeaw av laaquacie-tb;:,J-,,,--,,-:--'- '---'-ig h o u t th(I
)m otiona
Exemption 5
45
nges throughout the contract.
ie - survivor benefits are returned,
s on.
;ecurity
ing B oeing from chipping aw ay at our
iately a I_ _ _ _
rength as a U nion w ould be diluted.
costs structure tH at-has-L )"-% --,-,-,,,.,.---ince 2002 - ensuring no new out-
of the lum p sum paym ent w ould have been spent to pay for m edical cost
pocket. W ould w e have liked im provem ents in the plan? A bsolutely, but at
beat them back.
ishifting m ore costs onto the w orkers, and you helped

eryone in progression on top of G W I's in all 4 years ofthe contract.
for four years, m em bers h ave guaranteed w age increases in each of the
earnings or $5,000 w ill be paid on or before N ovem ber 7, 2008.
)0, w hich can be diverted into the V IP to enhance pension savings.
!s),w as the C om pany's attack on our already retired m em bers. Y our solidarity
loposal. T his is huge and protected this benefit for existing retirees.
'd $2 additional (in final year) is largest dollar increase in U nion history and
M any generations of w orkers before us sacrificed by w ithholding their labor giving us the m any benefits w e currently enjoy,
w hich som e take for granted. Itis critical that you understand these benefits are not w on overnight.T hey are hard fought
battles leaving scars on everyone, but people can look back proudly and say they helped w in that benefit or held the line to
ensure those w ho cam e after u s have it better than w e did. T hat's how contracts evolve.
W hen you look at this contract as a w hole, itis m uch better than the previous offer. Itis som ething to be proud of know ing
you held the line and said a resounding N O to takeaw ays and Y E S to a better future for generations to com e. T his contract
is in the hands of the m em bership. Itw as im portant that this negotiating com m ittee not w alk aw ay from the im provem ents
that w ere fought for and w on. W e certainly w anted to m ake m ore gains, but it w ould have been irresponsible to w alk aw ay
from the table and not allow you the opportunity to decide for yourself. W e stand by this contract as a g ood offer and now the
m em bership can evaluate it as a w hole and vote.
Study the proposal. E very m em ber can hold their head up high and b e proud of w hat w e have accom plished together - for
you, your fam ilies and future w orkers. B ecause of all of us, our U nion is stronger. Y ou stood together scored a m ajor victory
for w orking fam ilies across the country, as true fighting M achinists.
In Solidarity,
Y our U nion L eadership
NLRB-FOIA-00010822
C oN paring the O ffers
Issue
Job Security
9/3/08 L ast, B est and Final

C om pany added language to inform
Site R eps - notification only.
G eneral W age Increase

L um p Sum Ist Y ear
5% ,3% ,3%
6% of previous year's earnings or
$2,500 (w hichever is greater) +
$2,500 R atification B onus
L um p Sum 2nd Y ear

L um p Sum 3rd Y ear
E ntry Level W ages
P rogression
Pension
H ealth C are
R etiree M edical
C O LA Form ula
Incentive Plan
D uration
11/1/08 Im proved O ffer
- U nion can bid for w ork being outsourced to non-
union B oeing facilities. A lso tooling w ork is now
included in review process. (A rticle 21.7)
-Job protection for over 5,000 m em bers in parts deliv-
ery and facilities m aintenance. (LOU #2 & #37)
-V endors can only deliver parts inside the factory.
From there our m em bers willtrack use, disbursem ent,
acquisition, and/or inventory of parts. (LOU #37)
5% ,3% , 3% ,4% (4th year)
10% of previous year's earnings or $5,000 (w hichever
is greater) payable on or before N ovem ber 7, 2008
$1,500 and option to divertto V IP to bolster pension
savings
0
$1,500 and option to divertto V IP to bolster pension
savings
Increased $2.28
Increased $2.28
M em bers in progression w ho are above the new m ini-
M em bers in progression below the

m um receive $1 per hour after the G W I is applied (un-
new m inim um w ould be raised to

new m inim um (after G W I is applied). less the em ployee is less than $1 from the m axim um
T hose in progression above the new rate). All m em bers in progression increased to the
new m inim um rate or $1 per hour w hatever is greater.
m inim um s w ould receive nothing.

$80 effective 1/1/09
R evert to 2005 language. N o increase in deductibles,
H uge cost shifting w ith increased

deductibles, increased co-pays,
co-pays, or prescriptions. Fam ily out-of-pocket m axi-
m um rem ained the sam e. M onthly prem ium calcula-
increased prem ium s and m andatory generic prescriptions.C om pany tion rem ains the sam e w ith low cost plan being paid in
rem oved survivor and bridge benefit. full by C om pany. Survivor and bridge benefitrem ains
in contract.
L anguage w ould have endangered

R everts to 2005 language. Preserved coverage for
coverage for existing retirees by

existing retirees, w ho could have been rem oved from
rem oving them from scope of A gree- the A greem ent.
m ent. C overage for active em ploy-
ees w ho retire could have expired at
end of the contract.
O nly change is to add additional quarters for 4th year
N o change. C om pany refused to

pay 400 for quarter generated M ay, of agreem ent. C om pany will not pay 400 for quarter
June and July 2008.

generated M ay,June and July 2008.
C om pany offered incentive plan,

9/3/08 plan w ithdraw n. Parties will w ork together to
w hich m ay have paid out in last year develop an Incentive Plan.
of contract. nothing guaranteed.
L3 year agreem ent

14 year agreem ent
m o o l: ;U G
,A
M.
1,10,% b](D
V oting at the P ortland, O regon, location w ill take place on S aturday, N ovem ber 1, 2008, at D istrict
L odge N o. 2 4 's offices, located at 3645 SE 32nd A venue in P ortland. M em bers m ay v ote anytim e
betw een the hours of 9 A M and 4 PM .
NLRB-FOIA-00010823
I:
& H gu g
Economics -Improved
G E N E R A L W A G E IN C R E A SE S
1 sty ear-5 %
2 n d y ear-3 %
3rd year - 3%
4th year - 4%
LU M P S U M PA Y M EN TS:
1st year 10% of previous years earnings or $5,000, w hichever is greater - payable on or before N ovem ber 7, 2008
2nd year -$1,500 lum p sum - payable D ecem ber 1,2009

3rd year -$1,500 lum p sum - payable D ecem ber 1,2010
S econd and third year lum p sum can be diverted into V IP to
bolster m em bers'pension savings.
L um p sum s w ill now cover those on m ilitary leave of absence longer than 90 days.
IN C EN TIV E PLA N . P roposed plan in 9/3/08 proposal w as

w ithdraw n. A greem ent that parties w ill w ork together to
develop an Incentive Plan.
R A TE R A N G E M IN IM U M S -All rate range m inim um s
increased by $2.28.
PR O G R E SSIO N : T hose in progression w ill receive a supplem ental w age increase after the G W I sufficient to bring
them to the new rate range m inim um for their labor grade
or $1 per hour, w hichever is greater. T his m eans m em bers
in progression earning above the new m inim um w ill receive
$1 per hour after the G W I is applied (unless the em ployee is
less than $1 from the m axim um rate). T his am ounts to over
$2,000 m ore per year for m em bers in progression.
Duration -4 year Agreem ent
C ontract expiration S aturday, S eptem ber 8, 2012
Job Security - Improved

Letter of Understanding #2 Facilities
M aintenance - Improved
U pdated date in L etter of U nderstanding #2. In the Facilities and M aintenance areas, w e w ere able to protect m em bers hired through S eptem ber 3, 2008. T his date change
to the L etter of U nderstanding w ill now protect som e 2,200

m em bers for the life of the A greem ent.
Article 21.7 Subcontracting Improved
E xpanded the scope of our subcontracting review .R eview
process now includes tooling w ork and notification of p roposed offload. A lso secured the ability to com pete for w ork
that m oves from one B oeing facility to another B oeing
facility not covered by this bargaining agreem ent.
Job Security - Improved (continued)
Letter of Understanding #37
M aterial Delivery -im proved
(see language on page 6 & clarification letter below)
LO U 37 - M aterials D elivery - Itis im portant to under-
stand that in the 2002 contract w e lost all jurisdiction
over m aterials delivery inside the factories. W e can be
proud that w e w ere able to gain jurisdiction back for every
airplane program except the 787 final assem bly area and
som e ID S w ork (lim ited to inventory transactions). W e
w ould never have been able to lim it the expansion of sup-
pliers inside our factory w alls w ithout going on strike. This
new language lim its supplier activity to delivery only w hile
preserving our right to conduct inventory, issue, disburse,
and acquire parts and supplies in all other program s. This
protects nearly 3,000 m em bers and stops B oeing from
expanding their use of vendors inside the factory gates.
R evised language w ith the follow ing protections.
- Forklift D rivers, M PR F's, Factory C onsurnables H andlers,
E nvironm ental C ontrol W orkers and Shipping/D istribution
w ill not be laid off or rem oved from their job classification
and grade as a result of M aterials D elivery and Inventory
P rocess. T his revision expanded protection to 2,920 jobs
for the life of the A greem ent.
- E xcept for 787 final assem bly and som e ID S w ork
(lim ited to inventory transactions), vendors are lim ited to
delivering products to designated areas only. From there,
bargaining unit em ployees w ill track use, disbursem ent,
acquisition, and/or inventory of parts, m aterials, tools, kits
and other goods or products.
- Jointly w ork w ith the C om pany to im prove m aterial deliv-
ery process and ensure our m em bers grow w ith the new
technology and innovations.
- P arties w ill explore options for retraining or reassigning
bargaining unit em ployees to equal level jobs w hen em -
ployees are im pacted by process and technology changes.
(larification side letter regarding LOU #37
- O n C om m ercial A irplane program s other than the 787
E verett, internal and external suppliers, vendors, etc. m ay
continue to perform all transactions relating to the M ateri-
als D elivery and Inventory process that they w ere perform -
ing as of S eptem ber 3, 2008.
- O n the 787 E verett and ID S program s, internal and
external suppliers, vendors, etc. m ay perform the inventory
transactions described in LO U 37 of the 2005-2008 collec-
tive bargaining agreem ent.
NLRB-FOIA-00010824
M edical Coverage No CostShifting/No Takeaways
W orkforce Administration -
W ithdrew Takeaway Proposals
- R eturned to current coverage in 2002 & 2005 contract language. T he end result is your co-pays and deductibles w ill
notincrease - keeping your existing health care cost structure
through 2012 (no change in 10 years).W hile other com panies
that offer health care plans are regularly increasing em loyee
costs, yours w ill rem ain frozen at 2002 levels. A t the end of
the day, you gained m uch m ore by standing together.
A rticle 14.4 - R einstatem ent of S eniority L oss by
R eason of D uration of L ayoff.A greed to return to 2005
language w ith the exception of the date change. T his pro-
vision has provided several hundred m em bers w ho are
rehired after their C ategory A rights expired w ith reinstate-
m ent of their seniority.
- O nly change is the Plan year w ill convert to calendar year

beginning January 1,2010.
- Y our resolve m ade B oeing w ithdraw their increases in
deductibles, co-pays, m onthly prem ium contribution form ula
and prescription drug coverage. B oeing's m andatory generic
program and specialty care pharm acy program language is
rem oved.
" Survivor and bridge benefit rem ains in contract.
" By securing the sam e m edical coverage as the 2002 &
2005 language, the m oney that w ould have been spent on
additional m edical costs w ill now stay in your pocket.
Pension - Increased $11 & $13

Increased pension benefit from current $70 benefit to:
* $81 effective 1/1/09 - nearly 16% increase
* $83 effective 1/1 /12 - nearly 19% increase
Retiree M edical- Preserved for

Existing Retirees
- B oeing's veiled attem pt w ith carefully crafted retiree
m edical language w as recognized by your bargaining com m ittee as a threat by the C om pany to elim inate current re-
tiree m edical coverage. In its latest proposal, the C om pany

backed off these language changes, language reverts to
2005 contract, and existing retirees are protected. T his is a

huge w in - especially for those existing retirees.
- B oeing's language, as printed in their 9/3/08 offer,w ould
have taken those w ho are already retired (current retirees)
out ofthe scope of the A greem ent -threatening their coverage. Just as disturbing is the im plication this language
w ould have had on current active m em bers. T he C om pany's 9/3/08 language provided coverage only for active
em ployees w ho retire during the term of this A greem ent.
O nce the three-year agreem ent has expired, so w ould the
contractual guarantee for retiree m edical benefits of those
new ly retired m em bers. Itw as very im portant to ensure
this language w ent back to the 2005 language to protect
this benefit for existing retirees as w ell as future retirees.
A rticle 22.3 - S urplusing P ro ced u res - N um bers of
R etentions A llow ed. A greed to return to 2005 language.
T his provides seniority bands so retentions cannot
be used across the board w ithout regard to seniority.
C om pany's 9/3/08 proposal w ould have elim inated these
seniority bands and given them m ore freedom to layoff
senior m em bers.
A rticle 22.13 - P rom otional P ro ced u res - E ffect of R e-
fusing Prom otion. R eturned to 2005 language. C om pany
proposed on 9/3/08 changing from "particular location
and shift" to job. U nder the C om pany's 9/3/08 proposal
ifa person declines an E R T prom otion to any location or
shift, they w ould not be eligible for any other prom otion to
that job for 90 days. By reverting back to current lan-
guage, they are still eligible for other shifts and locations
-just not the shift or location they declined.
Health & Safety
W ithdrew Takeaway
S ection 16.2 - S ite C om m ittee S tructure and R esponsi-
bilities. R eturned to 2005 contract language w ith the ex-
ception of changing "SH E A "to "E H S." E lim inates proposed
tw o and three y ear rotation so continuity continues w ith the
safety program .
@ M W
gm
&
In the 9/3/08 offer,there w ere individual areas of benefit
im provem ents; how ever, the cost shifting the C om pany
w anted w as too great and did notjustify the im provem ents.
By defeating B oeing's cost-shifting proposal, your m edi-
cal plan costs w ill not increase for a total of 10 years. The
follow ing benefits return to the 2002 & 2005 contract levels
rather than the changes reflected in the S eptem ber 3, 2008
proposal:
- Increase for routine physicals
- H earing A id
- L ifetim e m axim um on m edical
- V ision
- D ental C overage - W eekly D isability
- C overage im provem ents for organ transplants
- Im provem ents to neurological developm ent coverage
- Provide coverage for sam e-gender dom estic partners
- Life Insurance, A ccidental D eath & D ism em berm ent
NLRB-FOIA-00010825
om (M D AM A T
P lum ber M aintenance

A greem ent to revise 81109 job description to incorporate the
requirem ent for a S team Fifter/PipeFifter license. In som e cases, upon m eeting the m inim um qualifications/requirem ents,
the prom otion m ay be im m ediate/otherw ise by E R T
P ainter D ecorative C om m ercial A ircraft
All current em ployees assigned to job num ber 01307 w ill be

prom oted to a new revised 01308 job code. A pproxim ately
275 em ployees w ill be upgraded upon ratification.
Inspector Integral F uel C ells
All current em ployees assigned to job num ber 59006 w ill be
upgraded to 59007. A pproxim ately 175 em ployees w ill be
upgraded upon ratification.
B oring F ixture M echanic/M achining A ssem bly T echnician
A greem ent to upgrade em ployees currently assigned to job
num ber 56906 to job num ber 73907. T his A greem ent w ill
result in approxim ately 12 em ployees upgraded to G rade 7
upon ratification. (A pplies to Portland only.)
A ssem bler Installer S tru ctu res/A ssem bier Installer W ingL
Structures
A greem ent to review the job package differences betw een

know ledge, skills, and responsibilities to determ ine a higher
level ofw ork statem ent in the 305xx/31 O xx job fam ilies. If
both parties determ ine there is a h igher graded w ork statem ent, the parties agree to utilize a new , m odified inline
prom otion LO U . T his A greem ent m ay result in up to 250
upgrades from G rade 4 to G rade 6.
IAM /Boeing Joint Program s Sam e as 9/3/08 offer

L etter of U nderstanding LQ Q X X
T his L etter of U nderstanding addresses the need for both
U nion and C om pany to w ork together to achieve a better understanding of C ontinuous Im provem ent concepts and strategies. W e acknow lege that the future of our jobs and our
industry relies on m aintaining an efficient and cost effective
daily business system . T he C om pany and U nion propose
to establish a productivity center that w ill be responsible for
training and im plem enting a joint approach to productivity
issues.
A rticle 16 ch an g es:
-A dded language that addresses environm ental care to
reflect the im portance this has on the health and safety of
our m em bers.
COLA - Sam e as 9/3/08 offer except

added dates for (OLA calculations for 4th
year.
M oonshine S hop R eview s
A greem ent to review the job assignm ents and differ-
ences betw een the various m oonshine shops across
the bargaining unit. E valuation of w ork being perform ed
and proper classification m ay result in som e job up-
grades.
W ichita A ir F ram e and/or P ow er P lant L icense
A greem ent
E m ployees in job num ber's U 3404/07, U 01 08/10,
92007/09/11, U 1207, 51807/09, 53809/11 w ho obtain
their A ir F ram e and/or P ow er Plant L icense w ill receive
prem ium pay in the am ount of $.50 per hour for each
license obtained (up to $1.00). W ill result in additional
pay for approxim ately 20 m em bers assigned in these
job titles. (A pplies to W ichita only).
Inspector P recision A ssem bly (PSD )
A greem ent to review w ork statem ent of 509xx job
fam ily. Ifrevisions are m ade the labor grade(s) w ill be
determ ined in accordance w ith A rticle 13 ofthe C ollec-
tive B argaining A greem ent/possible higher labor grade
w ork being perform ed.
A ssem bler P ow er P lant (PSD )
A greem ent to revise the 91106 job description. The
G rade 6 revisions w ill incorporate a h igher level of w ork
described. U pon installation ofthe revised job descrip-
tion, the C om pany w ill staff to the higher level as ap-
propriate, w hich m ay result in m ultiple upgrades.
W orkforce Administration -
Same as 9/3/08 offer
22.1 (a)(7) C ategory A ri

ghts w ill be increased as listed
below :
C urrent R ecall N ew R ecall
Y ears of C o
R ights
R ights
Service
3 years
year
1
year
0-1
3 years
3 years
1-3 years
5 years
5 years
3-5 years
8 years
7 years
5+ years
22.11 - Prom otional P rocedures - A dded language
restricting em ployees to 12 m onths in their present job
before they are eligible for E R T (previously in a C om pany
PR O ) w ith exceptions w hen in the C om pany's best inter-
est. U nion opposed this; how ever, itis in B oeing's last
and final offer.
22.12 - Prom otional P rocedures - G raduate A pprentices
-A dded C om posite M anufacturing T echnician to appren-
job num ber)
ticeship tables. A lso, C 4808 added (Portland

22.18(a)(3) -A llow s supervisors returning to hourly pay-
roll to return to any low er-graded job.
NLRB-FOIA-00010826
Holidays - Added dates for4 yrcontraCt

2008 H olidays
Thanksgiving D ay
Friday following
W
W
W
W
W
W
T hanksgiving
inter B reak
inter B reak
inter B reak
inter B reak
inter B reak
inter B reak
D ate of O b serv an ce
Thurs., N ov.27, 2008

Fri., N ov. 28, 2008
W ed., D ec. 24, 2008
T hurs, D ec. 25, 2008
Fri., D ec. 26, 2008
M on., D ec. 29, 2008
T ues., D ec. 30, 2008
W ed., D ec. 31, 2008
2009 H olidays
W inter B reak
M em orial D ay
Independence D ay
L abor D ay
T hanksgiving D ay
F riday follow ing
T hanksgiving
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
T hurs., Jan. 1,2009
M on., M ay 25, 2009
F riday, July 3, 2009
M on., S ept. 7, 2009
T hurs., N ov. 26, 2009
2010 H olidays
W inter B reak
M em orial D ay
Independence D ay
L abor D ay
T hanksgiving D ay
F riday follow ing
T hanksgiving
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
Fri., Jan 1, 2010
M on., M ay 31, 2010
M on., July 5, 2010
M on., S ept. 6, 2010
T hurs, N ov. 25, 2010
2011 H olidays
W inter B reak
M em orial D ay
Independence D ay
L abor D ay
T hanksgiving D ay
F riday follow ing
T hanksgiving
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
W inter B reak
M on., Jan. 3, 2011
M on., M ay 30, 2011
M on., July 4, 2011
M on., S ept 5, 2011
T hurs., N ov. 24, 2011
2012 H olidays
W inter B reak
M em orial D ay
Independence D ay
L abor D ay
D
M
M
W
M
Fri, N ov. 27, 2009

T hurs., D ec. 24, 2009
F riday, D ec. 25, 2009
M on., D ec. 28, 2009
T ues., D ec. 29, 2009
W ed., D ec. 30,2009
T hurs., D ec. 31, 2009
Fri., N ov.26, 2010

Fri, D ec. 2 4, 2010
M on., D ec. 27, 2010
T ues, D ec. 28, 2010
W ed., D ec. 29, 2010

T hurs, D ec. 30, 2010
Fri., D ec. 31, 2010
Fri., N ov. 25, 2011

Fri., D ec. 23, 2011
M on., D ec. 26, 2011
T ues., D ec. 27, 2011

W ed., D ec. 28, 2011
T hurs., D ec. 29, 2011
Fri., D ec. 30, 2011
ate of O b serv an ce
on., January 2, 2012
on., M ay 28, 2012
ed., July 4, 2012
on., S ept. 3, 2012
#37. N
ew language highlighted in red. D eleted
LOUhrough.
ow is the
lBel
anguage
hasnew
strike-t
L E T T E R O F U N D E R ST A N D IN G
N O . 37
SU B JE C T . M A T E R IA L S
D ELIV ERY AND INVENTORY PR O C ESS
T he C om pany and the U nion agree that parts, m aterials, tools, kits and
other goods or products furnished by an internal or external supplier,
vendor, c ontractor, or subcontractor m ay be delivered or presented to the
C om pany at any location to be designated by the C om pany, including but
not lim ited to local receiving areas, staging areas, parts control areas,
m aterials and tool storage areas, and/or factory locations w here parts or
assem blies are installed. S u ch lo catio n s w ill b e staffed , as n ecessary ,
w ith C o m p an y em p lo y ees, including b arg ain in g unit em p lo y ees in
classificatio n s resp o n sib le for receiving an d d istrib u tio n , an d job
fu n ctio n s p erfo rm ed by em p lo y ees th at fall w ithin b arg ain in g unit
job d escrip tio n (s) w ill co n tin u e to be p erform ed by su ch b arg ain in g
unit em p lo y ees. Im addition,
O n C om m ercial A irplane p ro g ram s o th er th an 787-E vereft, internal
and external suppliers, vendors, contractors, or subcontractors m ay, at
the C om pany's request, perform inventory transactions related to g o o d s
o r p ro d u cts th ey are delivering o r fu rn ish in g to th e C o m p an y ,
w hich m ay4nehtdiow ith b arg ain in g unit em p lo y ees tracking use,
disbursem ent, acquisition, and/or inventory of parts, m aterials, tools,
kits, and other goods or products co n sisten t w ith b arg ain in g unit job
d escrip tio n s.
T he C om pany's M aterials D elivery G roup P ro cess O w ner w ill eanduet
a quarterly review co n su lt w ith the U nion S ite R ep resen tativ es on a
m onthly b asis to provide status an the previous quarter's d iscu ss
activities an d issu es related to th e M aterials D elivery an d In v en to ry
p ro cess an d to d iscu ss T he review s m ay im eltide a disetissiam a
process,
opportunities to im prove the M aterials D elivery and Inven"

including th e m o st efficient u se of B oeing em p lo y ees an d reso u rces
an d th e im p lem entatio n o f new tech n o lo g y . U pon th e U nion's
req u est, th e C om p an y w ill co n d u ct a q u arterly review to d iscu ss
d ecisio n s o r issu es w ith th e M aterials D elivery an d In v en to ry
p ro cess from th e p rev io u s q u arter's activity.
T he p arties w ill explore o p tio n s for retraining o r reassig n in g bargaining
unit em p lo y ees to equal leveljo b s w hen b arg ain in g unit em p lo y ees are
im pacted by th e C o m pan y 's im plem entation of p ro cess an d tech n o lo g y .
ch an g es. In ad d itio n , forklift d riv ers (419 classificatio n ), M P R F s (614
classificatio n ), F acto ry C o n su m ab les, H an d lers (607 classificatio n ),
E n v iro n m ental C ontrol W orkers (H azM at - 855 classificatio n ), an d
S h ip p in g /D istrib u tio n (611 classificatio n ) as of S ep tem b er 3, 2008 w ill
not be laid off o r rem o v ed from th eir job classificatio n an d g rad e as a
resu lt of th e M aterials D elivery an d Inventory p ro cess.
N othing in this L etter of U nderstanding w ill be construed to perm it suppliers
or vendors to install parts or com ponents on the airplane, unless the vendors
or suppliers are correcting errors or perform ing w arranty w ork.
T he G arnpam y ag rees that bargaining unit em playees w ill not be land o
as a direet restilt of the G ernpany's conversiom to the M aterials D eliveFy
and Inventory P reeess, um less the erm pleyees are unw i ling to ehange jobs
(ineludim g a daw m grsde), shifts, or locations w ithin the bargainim g unit.
E m ployees w ho are ernployed 85 fffklift drivers as of S eptem ber 2, 2005
w ill eom tom ue their Fegular assignm ents for the teffln of the eentroet, ineluding
but not "n9oted to the rnevernent of supplier am d vendor parts fref" local
ores w0them the faetery.
NLRB-FOIA-00010827
O ther m provem ents R em aW ng from 9/3/08
B E R E A V E M E N T LEA V E
6.4(c) - B ereavem ent leave benefit for m em bers on LO A of
90 days or less. Previously only available to m em bers on the
payroll. In addition bereavem ent leave can be taken w ithin 30
calendar days of death (or evidence of belated notification of
death) - previously w ithin 20 calendar d ays. A dded sam e gen-
der dom estic partner to definition of "im m ediate fam ily."
A R T IC L E 14 - SE N IO R IT Y
14.1 (b)(1 0) Increase seniority C ategory A to 8 years from
7 years. U pon com pletion of orientation, your w ill receive
3 years of C ategory A recall rights.
LO U #36 -TEA M L E A D E R
- Increased prem ium from $1.75 to $2.00.
-A dded a com m ittee to review training requirem ents.
-A dded right to grieve, but not arbitrate team leader
decisions.
A R T IC L E 5 -SH IFT PR E FE R E N C E
5.4(a)(2) - U nion notification w hen em ployees are
displaced from their shift.
5.4(d) L ow est B E M S ID w ill determ ine shift preference
if tw o m em bers have the sam e seniority.
W ithdraw n L etters of U nderstanding
Follow ing
" LO U
" LO U
" LO U
letters w ere w ithdraw n:
X X - First V ote R atification B onus
X X - Incentive Plan
X X - L um p Sum P aym ent (new one replaced it)
Q uestion & A nsw ers
W ill m ed ica lco sts in cu rred d u rin g th e strike b e co vered

o r reim b u rsed ?
A: Y es, in the Strike S ettlem ent A greem ent benefits are considered continuous w ithout interruption for em ployees and
their dependents. All C O B R A prem ium s and valid insurance
claim s w ill be paid.

W hath a p p en ed to th e S u rvivio r b en efit?
A: Since w e reverted to the 2005 language, the Survivor
and T ransition B ridge B enefit are restored.
W hat h a p p en ed to th e life in su ra n ce?
A: Itreverted to the 2005 contract language level of $32,000

and w ill cover anyone w ho passed aw ay during the strike.
D id a n yth in g ch a n g e in M edical?
A: T he only change w as a form at change for A ttachm ent A &

B. Itsim ply m irrors the current form at ofthe sum m ary plan
descriptions - m aking iteasier to read.
Is S electio n s stilla h ea lth p la n ch o ice?
A. Y es and m onthly prem ium costs w ill rem ain the sam e
as w hat you currently pay until the next open enrollm ent
period in M ay w hen itw ill be recalculated under the current
form ula.
Is the 400 CO LA g en era ted in th e la st q u a rterin the
n ew offer?
A. T he U nion pushed hard for this, but at this tim e B oeing
w as unw illing to include itin the offer.
W hen w ill th e vote b e?
A. V oting at the Portland, O regon, location w ill take place
on S aturday, N ovem ber 1,2008, at D istrict L odge N o.
24's offices, located at 3645 SE 32nd A venue in Portland.
M em bers m ay vote anytim e betw een the hours of 9 A M
and 4 PM .
ff w e turn it dow n by 50% + 1, w h a th a p p en s?
A: T he strike continues. U nion negotiators w ill push for
another round of talks w ith the C om pany.
H ow lo n g w ill w e h a ve to retu rn to w ork?
A: In the Strike S ettlem ent agreem ent, w e pushed for a
later return date, but B oeing w ould only agree to N ovem -
ber 10th (9 days to return). Ifyou need additional tim e,
you should contact your m anagem ent and request the
additional tim e to return. Ifratified, m em bers can return
to w ork as early as third shift S unday, N ovem ber 2nd or
M onday, N ovem ber 3rd for 1st and 2nd shift m em bers.
W hat h a p p en ed to th e p rescrip tio n d ru g ta kea w a ys?
A: Since w e reverted to 2005 language, B oeing's m andatory
generic program and S pecialty C are Program language is
rem oved.
NLRB-FOIA-00010828
2008 S trike S ettlem ent A greem ent
T he B oeing C om pany ("C om pany") and the International

A ssociation of M achinists and A erospace W orkers, A FLC IO , on its ow n behalf and on behalf of its D istrict L odges
24, 70, and 751 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"U nion") agree as follow s:
1. U pon ratification of the p arties 2008 - 2012 collective

bargaining agreem ent, the union w ill term inate its strike and
picketing against the C om pany.

2. All com pany em ployees on strike shall be returned
to the sam e job they held prior to the strike and the tim e
spent on strike w ill be c ounted for the follow ing purposes:
seniority, seniority progression, sick leave/vacation eligibility

date, eligible m onths of participation for purposes of the
ShareV alue T rust, and, to the extent perm itted by E R ISA ,
the R etirem ent Plan.
3. All bargaining unit striking em ployees w ill be returned to

w ork com m encing on the 3rd shift on N ovem ber 2, 2008.
All em ployees w ill be returned to the shift, labor grade and

job classification they held on the last d ay ofw ork p rior to
the strike.
4. E m ployees shall be given until the beginning of their
shift on M onday, N ovem ber 10, 2008 to report to w ork.
E m ployees w ho are unable to return to w ork because
of m edical reasons w ill be review ed for m edical leave of
absence on a case-by-case basis. Further, em ployees

w ho are unable to return to w ork because of unavoidable
and com pelling reasons w ill also be review ed on a caseby-case basis. O ther em ploym ent during the strike w ill not
be considered as an unavoidable and com pelling reason to
delay reporting to w ork.
5. T he C om pany shall be u nder no o bligation to reinstate

em ployees w ho do n ot return to w ork in accordance
w ith paragraph 4, above, and such em ployees w ill be
considered to have voluntarily resigned their em ploym ent.
Such em ployees w ill be placed on a Preferential H iring
list ifthey notify the C om pany, in w riting, of their desire
to be reconsidered for em ploym ent. Individuals on the
Preferential H iring listw ill be hired by their job, labor
grade, and seniority as of S eptem ber 3, 2008 before n ew
em ployees a re hired. Individuals w ill be rem oved from the

Preferential H iring list ifthey refuse a job offer from the
C om pany. T he Preferential H iring listshall autom atically
term inate on S eptem ber 3, 2009.
6. E m ployees w ho prior to the strike scheduled vacations
w hich w ould have occurred during the strike w ill be
given priority in vacation scheduling. E m ployees m ay

request vacation pay in lieu of tim e off in accordance w ith
established practices.
7. E m ployee group b enefits shall be reinstated effective
N ovem ber 3, 2008 for em ployees w ho return to w ork. The
C om pany shall return all insurance prem ium s w hich have
been paid to it. In addition, insurance eligibility shall be
considered continuous for all returning em ployees and
their dependants, w ithout interruption since S eptem ber
3, 2008, and all valid insurance claim s w ill be paid,
including those of em ployees w ho m ay have died during
the strike. N orm al payroll contributions for the m onth of
O ctober w ill be collected from a future paycheck.
8. N o striking em ployee or union official shall be issued
corrective action by the C om pany for any activity taking
place during the strike except ifsuch individual is
convicted of a p enal offense.
9. All authorization/dues deduction cards w ill rem ain
valid for em ployees w ho continued their U nion
m em bership throughout the strike. E m ployees (other
than those in right-to-w ork states) w ho resigned their
union m em bership during the strike w ill be required
to com ply w ith the U nion Security p rovisions of the
collective bargaining agreem ent. T he C om pany w ill
not collect funds ow ed the U nion during the strike for
program s such as the M achinists N on-P artisan Political
L eague, G uide D ogs, or U nion dues. T he C om pany w ill
not deduct funds for the G ood N eighbor Fund, C redit
U nion deductions, or Savings B ond contributions m issed
during the strike.
10. A ny grievance pending prior to the strike shall not be
affected by the strike.
11. T he C om pany and the U nion m utually pledge their
best efforts to return all operations back to norm al at the
earliest possible tim e.
12. A ny paym ents resulting from changes to base
rates, cost of living adjustm ents, shift differentials, A O G
prem ium s, team leader prem ium s, job classification
upgrades, or any other w age adjustm ents resulting from
changes m ade to w ages or prem ium s in the 2008-2012
collective bargaining agreem ent, w ill be paid on or before
D ecem ber 4, 2008, and m ay be paid in the em ployee's
regularly scheduled paycheck(s) or by separate
paycheck.
13. E ach party agrees to w ithdraw any and all legal
actions, including charges before the N LR B or the
D epartm ent of L abor filed by either party against the
other, its officers, agents, and/or m em bers, or m ay
hereafter be filed, based on activity related to the
negotiations, the strike, or connected therew ith.
14. A ny disputes concerning the application of the
provisions of this S trike S ettlem ent A greem ent w ill be
subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions of
the collective bargaining agreem ent except as stated in
paragraph 11.
D A TED this 29th day of O ctober, 2008.
NLRB-FOIA-00010829
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010830
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010831
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010832
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010833
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010834
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010835
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010836
..
..
..
..
...
..
..
Non-Responsive
..
..
...
..
..
NLRB-FOIA-00010837
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010838
Non-Responsive
..
NLRB-FOIA-00010839
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-00010840
A nother new s article fro
51 re B oeing ULP
Page I of I
T odd, D ianne
F rom :
Jude B ryan [bryan@ w orkerlaw .com ]
S ent:
Friday, A pril 23, 2010 11:05 A M
T o:
T odd, D ianne
C c:
C arson G lickm an-Flora; Jude B ryan
S ubject:
A nother new s article from M 751 re B oeing ULP
A ttachm ents: A erospace N ew s A ubrey C ohen 2009 10-21.doc
4 /2 3 /2 0 1 0
NLRB-FOIA-00010841
A ero sp ace N ew s
http://blog.seattlepi.nw source.com /aerospace/archives/1 72716.asp
IfB oeing buys V ought 787 o p s, bad new s for W ashington state
IfB oeing buys its 787 operations from V ought, as is being reported, it w ould m ean that the
com pany's second 787 assem bly line w ould alm ost surely go to South C arolina, saV s S cott
H am ilton, an aerospace consultant for L eeham C o.
V ought is a key partner in B oeing's com plex 787 D ream liner production system , in w hich m uch of
the production is outsourced. V ought m akes tw o parts of the aft fuselage -- sections 47 and 48 --
in South C arolina.
T he w ay that B oeing is m aking the 787 -- w ith different parts m anufactured and assem bled all
over the w orld, then shipped back to E verett for final assem bly -- is the first tim e such a m ethod
has been attem pted.
T exas-based V ought w as the w eakest link in B oeing's outsourcing plan, H am ilton said. So it
m akes sense that B oeing w ould now insource w hat ithad outsourced.
L ast year, B oeing bought V ought's 50 percent stake in G lobal A eronautica, a fuselage sub-
assem bly in the sam e location as V ought's other 787 operations. G lobal A eronautic is now a 50-
50 aoint venture betw een B oeing and A lenia A eronautica, of Italy.
V ought and A lenia supply m ore than 60 percent of the 787 fuselage.
T here's plenty of land on the South C arolina site for expansion, H am ilton said, w hich m akes a
second 787 line a likely candidate for use of that land.
South C arolina w as a finalist for the first 787 assem bly line in 2003, but E verett eventually w on
out.
W ashington state has not done enough to preserve its aerospace industry, H am ilton said.
"T he fact that the governor did not prom ote W ashington aerospace at the P aris A ir Show w as
scandalous," H am ilton said. "T his aerospace council that she's created is too little too late."
U pdate: 12:45 p.m .
G ov. C hris G regoire's spokesm an P earse E dw ards responds
W ashington state had the largest presence ever at this year's show . T he G overnor has a ttended
the show in the past In fact, the G overnor's first-ever trade m ission as G overnor w as to the Paris
A ir Show . S he could not attend this year because the S ecretary of E ducation invited her to
m eetings on national education reform .
Like each and every G overnor ofW ashington state for the past 100 years, G overnor G regoire
has been grow ing relationships w ith the aerospace industry. T he G overnor is in frequent
conversations w ith B oeing m anagem ent and its w orkers. T he A erospace C ouncil is just another
exam ple of the G overnor's com m itm ent to entice B oeing and the industry to expand it future
operations in the state. For B oeing to rem ain com petitive in the global aerospace industry itm ust
source parts and services, and m anufacture aircraft, at locations that are the m ost cost-effective
and efficient A nd that's w hy w e're w orking very hard to m ake W ashington as attractive as
possible for aerospace com panies -- large and sm all.
NLRB-FOIA-00010842
W e have tw o big opportunities ahead of u s: M aking sure ifB oeing decides to build a second line
of the 787 -- itdecides to build ithere A nd, that B oeing w ins the A ir F orce's m id-air refueling
tanker contract.
P osted by A ndrea Jam es at July 1,2009 9.37 a.m .
NLRB-FOIA-00010843
A erospace N ew s
http://blog seattlepi.nw source com /aerospace/arch ives/1 72716.asp
IfB oeing buys V ought 787 o p s, bad new s for W ashington state
IfB oeing buys its 787 operations from V ought, as is being reported, itw ould m ean that the
com pany's second 787 assem bly line w ould alm ost sureIV go to South C arolina, says S cott
H am ilton, an aerospace consultant for L eeham C o.
V ought is a keV partner in B oeing's c om plex 787 D ream liner production sV stem , in w hich m uch of
the production is outsourced. V ought m akes tw o parts of the aft fuselage -- sections 47 and 48 --
in South C arolina.
T he w ay that B oeing is m aking the 787 -- w ith different parts m anufactured and assem bled all
over the w orld, then shipped back to E verett for final assem bly -- is the first tim e such a m ethod
has been a ttem pted.
T exas-based V ought w as the w eakest link in B oeing's outsourcing plan, H am ilton said. S o it
m akes sense that B oeing w ould now insource w hat it had outsourced.
L ast year, B oeing bought V ought's 50 percent stake in G lobal A eronautica, a fuselage sub-
assem bly in the sam e location as V ought's other 787 operations. G lobal A eronautic is now a 50-
50 Ooint venture betw een B oeing and A lenia A eronautica, of Italy.
V ought and A lpnia supply m ore than 60 percent of the 787 fuselage.
T here's plenty of land on the South C arolina site for expansion, H am ilton said, w hich m akes a
second 787 line a likely candidate for use of that land.
South C arolina w as a finalist for,the first 787 assem bly line in 2003, but E verett eventually w on
out.
W ashington state has not done enough to preserve its aerospace industry, H am ilton said.
"T he fact that the governor did not prom ote W ashington aerospace at the P aris A ir Show w as
scandalous," H am ilton said "T his aerospace COLincil that she's created is too little too late."
U pdate: 12:45 p.m .
G ov. C hris G regoire's spokesm an P earse E dw ards responds:
W ashington state had the largest presence ever at this year's show . T he G overnor has a ttended
the show in the past. In fact, the G overnor's first-ever trade m ission as G overnor w as to the Paris
A ir Show . S he could not attend this year because the S ecretary of E ducation invited her to
m eetings on national education reform .
Like each and every G overnor of W ashington state for the past 100 years, G overnor G regoire
has been grow ing relationships w ith the aerospace industry. T he G overnor is in frequent
conversations w ith B oeing m anagem ent and its w orkers. T he A erospace C ouncil is just another
exam ple of the G overnor's com m itm ent to entice B oeing and the industry to expand it future
operations in the state. For B oeing to rem ain com petitive in the global aerospace industry it m ust
source parts and services, and m anufacture aircraft, at locations that are the m ost cost-effective
and efficient. A nd that's w hy w e're w orking very hard to m ake W ashington as attractive as
possible for aerospace com panies -- large and sm all.
NLRB-FOIA-00010844
W e have tw o big opportunities ahead of us. M aking sure if B oeing decides to build a second line
of the 787 -- itdecides to build it here. A nd, that B oeing w ins the A ir F orce's m id-air refueling
tanker contract.
P osted by A ndrea Jam es at July 1,2009 9:37 a.m
NLRB-FOIA-00010845
Page I of 3
T odd, D ianne
F rom :
C arson G lickm an-Flora [flora@ w orkerlaw .com ]
S ent:
Friday, A pril 23, 2010 9:47 A M
T o:
T odd, D ianne
S ubject: Fw d: W roblew ski quote
A erospace N ew s
http://blog.seattlepi.nw source.coM /aerospace/archiveS /173301.asp
B oeing has not form ally proposed no-strike clause to union
IA M D istrict 751 President Tom W roblew ski sent the follow ing letter to m em bers
today:
July 8, 2009
D ear B rothers and S isters,
M any of you have seen the story in T he S eattle T im es w here elected
officials say they've been told by B oeing leadership th at the com pany
requires a no-strike clause from us as a condition for keeping a second 787
final assem bly here in W estern W ashington.
I w ant you to know th at:
1)B oeing has not approached us w ith any form al proposal on this;
2) W e're open to talking about anything th at will bring m ore jobs for our
m em bership, and if B oeing has proposals th at w ould ensure w e'll be
building B oeing airplanes here in Puget Sound for generations to com e,
w e'll certainly listen;
3) T oday, w e have a four-year agreem ent in place - one th at m em bers
ratified and agreed to live by and the C om pany agreed to abide by, as w ell.
4) A nd this is m ost im portant of all, your U nion leadership w ill never take
such a step w ithout consulting you. W e are and alw ays have been a
5/4/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00010846
Page 2 of 3
dem ocratic organization.
W e are w orking to im prove our relationship w ith B oeing, and the
M achinists U nion has m ade several overtures to th at effect. Im proving
the relationship to bring about a different result in bargaining is a
priority. W e plan to d edicate a lot of tim e and resources to this effo rt.
To use politicians as m icrophones to deliver a m essage, creates problem s
and does nothing to im prove the relationship. T he tw o sides need to w ork
w ithout the outside influence of politicians, analysts and reporters. M any
of B oeing's problem s w ith their em ployees have escalated because of this
type of tactic.
R ather than re-create the labor law s th at give w orkers the right to
w ithhold their labor, w e should all be w orking together to im prove the
relationship.
Several m em bers have also asked questions on m anagem ent Q & A 's
regarding the B oeing/V ought deal - specifically on the answ er that
m entioned B oeing had negotiated several agreem ents w ith the IA M this
year. T he follow ing are recent agreem ents w e have m ade to help B oeing be
m ore successful:
A llow ing partners (vendors) to com e into the factories here in Puget
ound to perf orm w arranty w ork in an effort to expedite first flight of
787 and correct m any of the challenges facing th at airplane.
help
from S t. Louis and W ichita to

em
pl
oyees
i
n
bri
ng
to
B
oei
ng
llow787,
ed as long as they w ere still hiring em ployees here.
0 Athe
on
- A greed to extended tem porary prom otions of G rade 3 to G rade 4 , w hich
m itigated W A R N notices.
In addition, to assist m em bers w ho are facing layoff, w e signed a letter of
understanding, w hich allow s laid-off or term inated em ployees the option
of continuing to m ake paym ents on their V IP loans after leaving the
payroll.
A gain, w e have a 4-year agreem ent in place,and w e are w illing to listen to
any proposals by the C om pany on any topic. To date, no proposals have
been m ade by the B oeing C om pany. W e believe everyone should rem ain
focused on getting the 787 certified, w hich is critical to the future of all
5/4/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00010847
Page 3 of 3
of us.
In Solidarity,
Tom
N otice: This m essage is intended for the addressee only and m ay contain privileged
and/or confidential inform ation, U se or dissem ination by anyone other than the intended
recipient is prohibited.
5/4/2010
NLRB-FOIA-00010848
By D O U G C A M ER O N
B oeing C o.'s chief executive said T hursday that the com pany is "effectively sold out" of new com m ercial aircraft
through 2012 and m ight consider boosting production again to m eet custom er d em and.
C hicago-based B oeing also expec ts aircraft orders and deliverie s next year to be "significantly higher" as m ore
airlines accelerate fleet plans or drop efforts to defer receiving extra capacity, C hief Financi al O fficer Jam es Bell
said.
Jim M cN erney, B oeing's chairm an and C E O ,em phasized the com m ercial-business recovery during the aircraft
m aker's annual investor day, alongside efforts to boost the grow th of the com pany's defense side by increasing
the portion of overseas sales.
W hile B oeing has been focusing on delivering the delayed new 787 jetliner, italso needs to refresh the 737 and
777 program s. M r. M cN erney said he doesn't envision having to upgrade or replace both types at the sam e tim e,
and a decision regarding next steps m ight not com e until early next year, later than previously indicated.
T he aerospace group this w eek announced plans to boost production of its best-selling 737 later this year. The
rate for other m odels also is set to rise.
M r. M cN erney said he doesn't expect the order for another delayed program -aerial refueling tankers for the U .S.
A ir F orce-to be split. B oeing is expected to bid for the contract, as is E uropean A eronautic D efence & Space
C o., the Franco-G erm an group.
In slides that w ere to accom pany his presentation T hursday, the head of B oeing's 787 program said assem bi y of
the delayed aircraft w as "im proving" despite the recent disclosure of another design snag. Pat S hanahan w as to
say that C hicago-bas ed B oeing intends to take m ore design w ork for the larger 787-9 variant of the plane in-
house, firm ing its design configuration by m idye ar w ith a view to starting production in the first quarter of 2012.
T he base 787-8 m odel m ade its first flight last D ecem ber.
B oeing plans to raise production of all 787 m odels to 10 a m onth by the end of 2013.
M r. M cN erney said a second 787 plant in South C arolina will eventually be self-sufficient, insulating the com pany
from som e of the im pact o f any industrial action at its W ashington state facility.
P rinted in The W all Street JournalA sia, page 18
NLRB-FOIA-00010849
Page I of I
T odd, D ianne
F rom :
Jude B ryan [bryan@ w orkerlaw .com ]
S ent:
M onday, M ay 24, 2010 10:48 A M
T o:
T odd, D ianne
C c:
D avid C am pbell; K athy B arnard; C arson G lickm an-Flora; Jennifer R obbins
S ubject:
IAM v. B oeing, C ase N o.: 19-C A -32431
A ttachm ents: 2010 0 5 2 1 W SJ.pdf
M s. T odd:
A ttached is a new s article w e are subm itting in support of the U nion's charge. T he link to the article is:
http-.//online.w sj com /article/S B 10001424052748703559004575256141420108422.htm lm od= W S J-Iatestheadlines
Ju d e B ryan IS chw erin C am pbell B arnard Iglitzin

L avitt LLP 1206.285 2828 iw w v w ofkeriaw COITI
T his com m unication is nterdcd for a spec& c recip;ent arin m ay
privilege
be protected by the attorney client and w ork-pro,diU
ifyw-; receive b s rnessage in erro, please perm ariently delete t and notify the sender
5 /2 4 /2 0 1 0
NLRB-FOIA-00010850
Advice Memorandum
DATE:
April 11, 2011
S.A.M.
TO:
Region 19
FROM:
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
line.
activity.
the agreement.

NLRB-FOIA-00010851
Case 19-CA-32431
- 2 -


FACTS

this Agreement[.]
ten employees.

Section 21.7
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00010852
Case 19-CA-32431
- 3 -


In

For example,




strike.

is a big deal[.]

NLRB-FOIA-00010853
Case 19-CA-32431
- 4 -
strike zone[.]


Kiga
above.
summit in Chicago.

IAM representatives

This was the first
ended.
1 In his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
2
Union had struck.

in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
NLRB-FOIA-00010854
Case 19-CA-32431
- 5 -
future strikes.

Doug Kight.
labor relations.

At a subsequent
supplier issues.

IAM

Boeing agreed to

customers.

During August,
NLRB-FOIA-00010855
Case 19-CA-32431
- 6 -

Meanwhile, the
assembly line.



The Union said

At the end of the


On September

But truthfully, it
NLRB-FOIA-00010856
Case 19-CA-32431
- 7 -

So weve become an
reliable supplier.
do.
weeks.

Carolina.
on October 1.

The Union

In

The Union
control.

When a Union
would get more.

NLRB-FOIA-00010857
Case 19-CA-32431
- 8 -

The Union

Also,
Carolina.
negotiations.


Conner


committee.
generation product.

Indeed, the

get back to him.
NLRB-FOIA-00010858
Case 19-CA-32431
- 9 -

We would obviously


...
And so some of the
Sound.

Our customers
couple of weeks.

Michalski explained
of conduct.
not respond.

He wanted

Keating did not
their State.

On
seven years.
NLRB-FOIA-00010859
Case 19-CA-32431
- 10 -

In a press

The managers were

line.


The
our customers eyes.


customers.
NLRB-FOIA-00010860
Case 19-CA-32431
- 11 -
Jim Albaugh.

The

history.
haul.
with the union.

of wages.
Charleston.

... And


NLRB-FOIA-00010861
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -

It was that
three years.
schedule.

Approximately 1,740
approximately 60%.
ACTION


Then, when Boeing

It also
election.
years.
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00010862
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
the Union.



Nor could Boeing
months.
problems.

activity.
rights.

NLRB-FOIA-00010863
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -

The Court


supplier strategy.9
plant.
employment.10
activity.12
Ibid.
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
See id. at 520.
10
See id. at 520-21.
11
See id. at 521.
12
See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00010864
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
date.13

Thus, telling

unlawful threats.17
13
14
th
mem. 50 F.3d 1037 (11
1997).
15
Aelco Corp., 326 NLRB 1262, 1265 (1998).

See also Dorsey
th
part 233 F.3d 831 (4
16
311 NLRB at 1200.

17
unionized).
18
Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00010865
Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -

An employer may
to predicting

Some statements

Others were
testifies.21

And statements
(1)

During the call,
Sound.22
(2)

The
19
20
consequences).
21
22
23
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00010866
Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -
(3)
strikes.25
(4)
activity.26
II.

Instead of
24
to employees.
25

If
26
NLRB-FOIA-00010867
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -

Future work
desirable 787 jobs.

layoffs.
layoffs.
implemented.

In


its nonunion plant.

employees.30
27
28
Ibid.
29
th
Cir. 1990).
30
See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00010868
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
have performed.




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

See also
32
33
34
35
NLRB-FOIA-00010869
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
activity.36
strike.
strike.38

And the Board has
right to strike.
36
37
380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38
See id. at 283-85.
39
See id. at 284.
40
See ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00010870
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
substantial.42


Boeing has

The substantial

In addition, Boeing
Washington.

In
striking.

th
41
See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
42
Cir.
See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
43
NLRB-FOIA-00010871
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent.44
rights.45



the employees.46
employee rights.47
Paper.

Second, Boeings

position.
44
228, 231 (1963).

th
(4
Cir. 2000).
45
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
46
47

See also
NLRB-FOIA-00010872
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -


And the many
with the union.48


Section 8(a)(3).
48
49
NLRB-FOIA-00010873
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
subject.
A.

Alternatively, the

unit jobs.54
50
51
52
Ibid.
53
54
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00010874
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
bargaining unit.55
an expanded unit.56
jobs.57

Even

The work
unit employees.


In fact,
escalating.
55
56
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
57
134 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998).

NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
58
59
NLRB-FOIA-00010875
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009.
Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
B.

The Board will

In interpreting

This
60
61
See id. at 812, fn. 19.
62
64
See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00010876
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
contract.66
agreement.




65
Id. at 1260.
66
Id. at 1262.
67
68
th
Cir.
NLRB-FOIA-00010877
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -

also lacks merit.


Absent
modifications.71
69

70
71
NLRB-FOIA-00010878
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
rights.72


At present,

Thus, the
72
the Act).
73
1093 (1996).
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00010879
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.J.K.
ROFs - 9
74

The Region should

In the

This will
NLRB-FOIA-00010880
Advice Memorandum
DATE:
S. A. M.

TO:
Region 19
FROM:
SUBJECT:
April 11, 2011

Division of Advice
The Boeing Company

512-5006-5062
Case 19-CA-32431
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
issues relating to the Employer s decision to place a second
line. Specifically the Region requested advice as to whether:
( 1) the Employer violated Section 8( a) ( 1) by threatening to
elsewhere was based on the unit s strike history; ( 2) the
Employer violated Section 8( a) ( 3) by deciding to place the
unit s strike history, even though no unit employees have yet
to lose their j obs; and ( 3) the Employer violated Section
8( a) ( 5) by failing to bargain in good faith over its decision
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
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
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-00010881
Case 19-CA-32431
- 2 -
seven planes on the first line. Thus, the Region should seek
FACTS
commercial aircraft. Boeing has a long-established collectivebargaining relationship with the International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers ( IAM) and certain IAM
District and Local Lodges. The parties current collectivebargaining agreement is effective November 2, 2008 through
Section 21. 7 of that agreement, entitled
[ O] ffloading work is defined as moving work from one
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 slippage[ . ] Section 21. 7
Anything in this Section 21. 7 to the contrary
notwithstanding, it is agreed that . . . the Company has
carry out decisions in ( a) through ( d) above, to enter
it is to be performed, which rights shall not be subj ect
to arbitration. . . .
NLRB-FOIA-00010882
Case 19-CA-32431
- 3 -
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
and subsidy incentive package totaling more than $3. 2 billion.
suppliers in the southeast U. S. and abroad. For example,
manufacture of the wings. Boeing repeatedly has had to
its growing order backlog. At about the same time, Boeing
collective-bargaining agreement. During those negotiations,
the Union s bargaining position. On October 6, 2008, Boeing s
stock dropped to a four-year low. That same day, CEO Jim
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
sustain and grow Boeing j obs[ . ] 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 rej ect contract
NLRB-FOIA-00010883
Case 19-CA-32431
- 4 -
j ob security by buying our airplanes. 1
The following day, Boeing s Vice President for Government
conference in Everett. In 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
cleared by Boeing Commercial Airplanes CEO Scott Carson. Kiga
negotiations, the Union had proposed to amend Section 21. 7 to,
above. Boeing refused to agree to such an amendment, and the
In early 2009, 2 the media again began publishing reports
Senator Patty Murray had met with Boeing s Senior Vice
the CEO was sick and tired of the union s strikes and was
summit in Chicago. Management officials attending included
Management & Operations Ray Conner. IAM representatives
District 751 DBR Tom Wroblewski. This was the first
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-00010884
Case 19-CA-32431
- 5 -
future strikes. He said that the parties had to come up with
a way to stop having labor disputes. The general theme was
with Conner and Boeing s Vice President of Human Resources
Doug Kight. The parties focused on how to build a better
labor relations. Wroblewski thought that one of the purposes
of the meeting was to get to know Conner. At a subsequent
expressed Boeing s concern that its customers did not have
supplier issues. For the first time, Conner raised the
the Vought plant in North Charleston, South Carolina. IAM
maintenance, and quality employees. Boeing agreed to
recognize the Union but wanted to negotiate a new collectivebargaining agreement.
On July 8, the Seattle Times reported that Boeing s CEO
July, on July 7 and July 23. At each of these meetings,
Boeing to be viable. They stated that Boeing needed a longterm agreement with no-strike language to satisfy their
customers. At this point, Boeing was two years behind
that it had purchased Vought s plant, a South Carolina
employee filed a decertification petition. During August,
NLRB-FOIA-00010885
Case 19-CA-32431
- 6 -
without intermediaries. 3 Boeing also issued a FAQ document
situation created by the Everett strike. Meanwhile, the
assembly line. For example, The Post and the Courier reported
that South Carolina s low unionization rate is viewed as an
advantage in the 787 chase[ . ] An article in the Charleston
workers with a history of walk[ ing] off the j ob.
where to locate the second line. The following day, Boeing
a long-term agreement. Carson informed the Union that the
the end of each of the three-year contracts. The Union said
for some sort of neutrality agreement. At the end of the
was scheduled for September 10. In reporting on Boeing s
Journal characterized this vote as [ a] wild 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) .
. . . There s a lot of issues to look at, a lot being
studied, no decision has been made. But truthfully, it
3 The Union filed a Section 8( a) ( 5) charge alleging that
NLRB-FOIA-00010886
Case 19-CA-32431
- 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
customers in a timely way and that s what we re trying to
do.
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
Carolina. On October 1, Boeing applied to North Charleston
on October 1. At the start of negotiations, Boeing explained
deliveries to customers. The Union responded that in exchange
The parties met again on October 7, 8, and 15. The Union
2022 but at other times, demanded a twenty-year agreement. In
and move toward a profit-sharing incentive program. The Union
insure that Boeing s measures of productivity were tied to
control. At one point, Boeing stated that the general wage
increase and COLA could not exceed 3. 5%. When a Union
increased more than 3. 5%, Boeing responded that employees
would get more. On October 15, for the first time, Boeing
NLRB-FOIA-00010887
Case 19-CA-32431
- 8 -
benefit pension plan that the existing employees enj oyed.
The Union repeatedly raised the issues of j ob security
and Employer opposition to the Union elsewhere. The Union
the long-term, employees needed enhanced j ob security. Also,
Carolina.
negotiations. The Union asserts that Boeing never described
outstanding bargaining issues. Moreover, Boeing never
The parties met again on October 20 and 21. Conner
the Board meeting on October 26. By the end of the parties
Union organizing campaigns. In addition, the Union presented
Concepts for a long-term agreement and a j oint partnership
committee. This Draft called for retention of current unit
generation product. Boeing asserts that this rough draft
was the Union s last and final offer, but the Union
that this would be the parties final session. Indeed, the
requesting further information. Kight responded that he would
get back to him.
NLRB-FOIA-00010888
Case 19-CA-32431
- 9 -
[ T] here would be some duplication. We would obviously
work to minimize that. But I think having said all of
relationship has some benefits. . . . And so some of the
Sound. And the very negative financial impact of [ sic]
today had we not had a strike last year. Our customers
year, and the 787 program would be in better shape. . . .
And I don t blame this totally on the union. We j ust
haven t figured out a way - the mix doesn t - isn t
working well yet. So, we ve either got to satisfy
couple of weeks.
Conner stated that the Union s economic terms and demand for
neutrality were unacceptable to Boeing. Michalski explained
of conduct. Michalski stated that the Union was willing to
not respond. On October 24, Michalski called Senior Vice
Union was not seeking a true neutrality agreement. He wanted
the parties ability to reach an agreement. Keating did not
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
Boeing s startup costs and tax breaks totaling $450 million in
exchange for Boeing s agreement to create at least 3, 800 j obs
seven years. That same day, North Charleston approved
Boeing s site clearing permit.
NLRB-FOIA-00010889
Case 19-CA-32431
- 10 -
the Union s economic demands were too costly and its
insistence upon neutrality and j ob security were unacceptable.
The Union asserts, however, that Boeing s failure to submit
any proposals, its rej ection of the Union s serious efforts to
address Boeing s purported concerns, and then its precipitous
the second 787 assembly line in South Carolina. In a press
Directors had j ust approved the selection of North Charleston.
talking points regarding its decision. The managers were
issues and work stoppages. The memo further stated, In the
against the risk of production disruption . . . from natural
line. As a result, employees in the Puget Sound and Portland
to suffer a loss of work. Articles that appeared in the
Journal on December 8 discussed this announcement. The
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.
customers.
NLRB-FOIA-00010890
Case 19-CA-32431
- 11 -
On March 2, 2010, a Seattle Times j ournalist conducted a
videotaped interview of Boeing s new Commercial Airplanes CEO,
Jim Albaugh. ( Albaugh had moved over from his position as
Integrated Defense Systems CEO to replace Carson. ) The
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:
haul. And we had some very productive discussions
with the union. And unfortunately, we j ust didn t
production stability. And read [ sic] that is [ sic]
of wages. And we j ust could not get to a place
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
actually do deliver. And we have lost our
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
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-00010891
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.
And it was not the wages we re paying today. It was that
three years. We cannot afford to continue the rate of
escalation of wages. . . .
because of Union strikes, stating, [ w] e ll do work here if we
schedule. Approximately 2, 900 Puget Sound unit employees
currently work on the 787 assembly line. Approximately 1, 740
approximately 60%. Boeing asserts that the South Carolina
Approximately 1, 000 mechanic and flight line j obs will be
ACTION
This case involves Boeing s transfer of work from an
Boeing s decision was motivated by antiunion considerations.
From the time of the Union s strike in the fall of 2008,
countenance further strikes. Time and again, in e-mails to
avoidance of future strike activity. Then, when Boeing
denied the Union access to employees at the facility. It also
election. Simultaneously, Boeing officials told the Puget
years. Although the Union entered negotiations with Boeing
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00010892
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
and made maj or concessions in an effort to address its stated
the Union. As soon as South Carolina approved the financial
announced its decision. Boeing s CEO admitted that the
employees strike activity. Moreover, to reinforce the
employees to abstain from future strikes. Nor could Boeing
months. Rather, the delay resulted primarily from its own
problems.
locate this second line in South Carolina, despite a two-anda-half-year delay in the production of its new 787 aircraft,
finding of unlawful motivation. While South Carolina would
8( a) ( 1) based upon Boeing s coercive and threatening
and a violation of Section 8( a) ( 3) based upon Boeing s
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)
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
NLRB-FOIA-00010893
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -
I. The Employer Violated Section 8( a) ( 1)
employer speech protected under Section 8( c) of the Act and
threats of reprisals violative of Section 8( a) ( 1) . 5 The Court
carefully phrased on the basis of obj ective fact to convey an
employer s belief as to demonstrably probable consequences
beyond his control[ . ] 6 On the other hand, threats of
economic reprisal to be taken solely on [ the employer s] own
volition violate Section 8( a) ( 1) . 7
at some future time. 8 Faced with a union organizing drive,
supplier strategy. 9 The employer stated that it had
plant. The employer also made clear that the plant s nonunion
employment. 10 And the employer conveyed the message that the
planned to introduce. 11 The Board concluded that although the
activity. 12 The Board expressly distinguished an employer s
5 See NLRB v.
Gissel Packing Co. , 395 U. S. 575, 618 ( 1969) .
6 Ibid.
7 Id.
at 619 ( citation omitted) .
8 See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn.

9 See id.
6 ( 1974) .
at 520.
10 See id.
at 520-21.
11 See id.
at 521.
12 See id.
at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00010894
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
date. 13
Section 8( a) ( 1) by threatening to withhold work opportunities
because of the exercise of Section 7 rights. 14 Thus, telling
employees that they will lose their j obs if they j oin a strike
violates Section 8( a) ( 1) . 15 Similarly, in Kroger Co. , the
of intraunion unrest and labor disputes. 16
unlawful threats. 17 Rather, an employer s predictions of
customer disaffection must be based on obj ective 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 ( 11th

Cir. 1995) ; General Electric Co. , 321
NLRB 662, fn. 5 ( 1996) , enf. denied 117 F. 3d 627 ( D. C. Cir.
1997) .
15 Aelco Corp. , 326 NLRB 1262, 1265 ( 1998) .
See also Dorsey
Trailers, Inc. , 327 NLRB 835, 851 ( 1999) , enfd. in pertinent
th
part 233 F. 3d 831 ( 4
Cir. 2000) ( threat to close the plant if
the employees went out on strike) .
16 311 NLRB at 1200.
See also General Electric Co. , 321 NLRB
at 662, fn. 5 ( employer conveyed to employees that
investment in the plant or its closure) .
17 See, e. g. , Tawas Industries, 336 NLRB 318, 321 ( 2001) ( no
obj ective basis for prediction that customers, fearing
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
based on obj ective facts) ; Debbie Reynolds Hotel, 332 NLRB
466, 466 ( 2000) ( no factual basis for statements about having
would not be able to afford employer s facilities if employees
unionized) .
18 Curwood, Inc. , 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 ( 2003) .
NLRB-FOIA-00010895
Case 19-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
were posted by Boeing on its website or intranet. Others were
admission ( an exception to the hearsay rule) , if the reporter
testifies. 21 By contrast, reporter summaries cannot form the
basis for a Section 8( a) ( 1) violation. And statements
( 1) Boeing posted its quarterly earnings conference call
on its intranet for employees on October 21. During the call,
Sound. 22 His comments were indistinguishable from the
violative in General Electric. 23
( 2) Boeing s October 28 memo to managers advised them to
disruptions caused by, among other things, strikes. The
thrust of Boeing s message to employees was that Boeing had
19 See id.
339 NLRB at 1137.
20 E. g. , Miller Industries Towing Equipment, Inc. , 342 NLRB
1074, 1075-76 ( 2004) ( employer did not predict unavoidable
consequences) .
21 Cf.
Sheet Metal Workers Local 15 ( Brandon Regional Medical
Center) , 346 NLRB 199, 201-02 ( 2006) , enf. denied on other
grounds 491 F. 3d 429 ( D. C. Cir. 2007) ( newspaper report of
was not available for cross-examination) .
22 These same comments were quoted in the Seattle Times.
23 See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 ( 1974) .
NLRB-FOIA-00010896
Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -
removed j obs from Puget Sound because employees had struck and
that they would lose work if they struck again. 24
( 3) In articles that appeared in the Seattle Times and
strikes. 25
( 4) In a video-taped interview on March 2, Boeing
Employer s decision to locate the second line in South
activity. 26
j obs, while a decision to rej ect union representation could
bring those j obs to their communities.
II.
The Employer Violated Section 8( a) ( 3)
The Employer s decision to locate the second 787 line at
to support that line violated Section 8( a) ( 3) because the
Initially, despite Boeing s assertions that its decision
Sound employees with consequent adverse effects. Instead of
24 The Region should insure that this message was communicated
to employees.
25 The authors of these articles will need to testify.
If
26 Vice President Kight s video-taped comments that Boeing s
were first posted on Boeing s website on September 2, outside
the Section 10( b) period.
NLRB-FOIA-00010897
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -
by planes produced in North Charlestown. Future work
desirable 787 j obs. There are likely to be transfers to
layoffs. Moreover, Boeing s adoption of its new dualsourcing program means that the Puget Sound and Portland unit
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
not necessary to establish a Section 8( a) ( 3) violation. 27 In
days to engage in work stoppages. Even though no employees
found a Section 8( a) ( 3) violation based upon the employer s
retaliatory motive. 28
impact on unit employees. 29 In Adair Standish Corp. , the
its nonunion plant. The Board noted that diversion of the
new work from Standish and therefore violated Section 8( a) ( 3)
employees. 30 Similarly, in Cold Heading Co. , the employer
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 ( 6th

Cir. 1990) .
30 See id.
at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00010898
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
representative sought to affiliate with the UAW. 31
have performed. And as in Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. ,
financial impact of Boeing s decision is no defense to a
Section 8( a) ( 3) violation.
employees strike history. An employer s discouragement of
meaning of Section 8( a) ( 3) . 32 This applies to employer
engaged in a strike in the past, 33 as well as employer conduct
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
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 employer unlawfully diverted work from its
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) by
j ustification for entering into a permanent subcontract) .
34 See Century Air Freight, 284 NLRB 730, 732 ( 1987) ( employer
violated Section 8( a) ( 3) by permanently subcontracting unit
exercise of their right to strike) ; Westpac Electric, 321 NLRB
1322, 1374 ( 1996) ( employer violated Section 8( a) ( 3) by
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-00010899
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
activity. 36
strike. However, Boeing relies upon the Supreme Court s
sufficient business j ustification to permit its actions.
strike. 38 Specifically, the Court found that the use of a
an impasse in negotiations was not an unfair labor practice. 39
face of a whipsaw strike. 40
Boeing s attempt to extend the holding of Brown to
vitiate the Section 13 right to strike. And the Board has
j ustify discriminatory conduct based upon the exercise of the
right to strike. Thus, in National Fabricators, the Board
expressly rej ected the employer s attempt to use Brown and
other lockout cases to j ustify its decision to lay off those
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-00010900
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
future. 41 Instead, the Board found that disfavoring employees
proscribed by Section 8( a) ( 3) and the employer s business
j ustification - to avoid investing money in employees who
substantial. 42
Boeing s concession that choosing South Carolina will
demonstrates that Boeing s actions were retaliatory and not a
legitimate business decision. In addition, Commercial
a green field site, involves significant risks. Boeing has
second assembly line in the Puget Sound area. The substantial
facility therefore will be duplicative. In addition, Boeing
Washington. Exaggerating the disruptive effects of prior
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 rej ection of the
Union s efforts to negotiate a long-term no strike agreement.
Boeing violated Section 8( a) ( 3) by retaliating against the
striking.
We also conclude that Boeing s conduct was inherently
destructive of employee interests. 43 Conduct is inherently
903 F. 2d 396 ( 5th

Cir.
1990) , cert. denied 498 U. S. 1024 ( 1991) .
41 See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 ( 1989) , enfd.

42 See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
43 See NLRB v.
Great Dane Trailers, Inc. , 388 U. S. 26, 33
( 1967) ( citation omitted) .
NLRB-FOIA-00010901
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent. 44 In International Paper Co. , the Board set forth
rights. 45 First, the Board looks to the severity of the harm
to employees Section 7 rights. Second, the Board considers
the temporal impact of the employer s conduct, i. e. whether
hinder future bargaining. Third, the Board distinguishes
between conduct intended to support an employer s bargaining
process of collective bargaining. And finally, the Board
assesses whether the employee s conduct discourages collective
the employees. 46 Even if the employee s conduct is
inherently destructive, the Board weighs the employer s
asserted business j ustification against the invasion of
employee rights. 47
Boeing s actions were inherently destructive of employee
Paper. First, the harm to employees Section 7 rights was
facility and unit j obs will be lost. Second, Boeing s
j ust to influence the outcome of a particular dispute, namely,
to take away employee support for the Union s most effective
any future collective bargaining. Third, Boeing s conduct
bargaining and not j ust to support a specific bargaining
position. Finally, bargaining was made to seem a futile
44 Ibid. , quoting NLRB v. Erie Resistor Corp. , 373 U. S. 221,
228, 231 ( 1963) . See also Dorsey Trailers, Inc. , 327 NLRB
835,
863-64 ( 1999) , enf. denied in pertinent part 233 F. 3d 831
( 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) .
47 Id.
at 1273 ( finding no j ustification for employer s
bargaining unit work during a lawful lockout) . See also
Dorsey Trailers, 327 NLRB at 863-64 ( employer s closing of
purchased facility outside the union s j urisdiction was
inherently destructive of employee rights) .
NLRB-FOIA-00010902
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -
Union s position at the bargaining table.
The unavoidable consequence of Boeing s decision to place
employees elsewhere. Employees will correctly fear that
their j obs to nonunionized workers. Others may be encouraged
to file or support decertification petitions. And the many
j ustifies moving commercial production elsewhere.
j ustification. Its only j ustification was its desire to insure
that is not a legitimate j ustification.
employer s conduct was inherently destructive where its stated
with the union. 48 The Board found that the employer s stated
increase because employees chose union representation. 49
Likewise, Boeing s stated reason for its decision - that it
South Carolina employees did not. Accordingly, Boeing s
Section 8( a) ( 3) .
The Union s allegation that Boeing failed to bargain in
787 line raises two preliminary issues: ( 1) whether Boeing s
decision was a mandatory subj ect of bargaining; and ( 2) if so,
48 See 355 NLRB No.

49 See id. , slip op.
199, slip op. at 3-4 ( 2010) .
at 3.
NLRB-FOIA-00010903
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
subj ect. Although we conclude that the decision was a
mandatory subj ect of bargaining and there is substantial
impasse, the Region should dismiss the Section 8( a) ( 5)
bargain, applying Provena. 50
A.
Mandatory Subj ect of Bargaining
Under Dubuque Packing Co. , a decision to relocate unit
employer s operation is a mandatory subj ect of bargaining
location; or the employer s decision involved a change in the
enterprise s scope and direction. 51 Alternatively, the
the employer s decision. 52 Applying the Dubuque test, the
a mandatory subj ect of bargaining. 53
mandatory subj ect even though there is no immediate loss of
unit j obs. 54 For example, in Quickway Transportation, Inc. ,
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 j obs 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
employees) .
NLRB-FOIA-00010904
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
the Board found that the employer s decision to contract with
bargaining unit. 55 Likewise, in Spurlino Materials, LLC, the
work as a result of the employer s subcontracting, existing
an expanded unit. 56 And in Dorsey Trailers, Inc. , the Board
was a mandatory subj ect because the potential loss of
j obs. 57
in South Carolina amounted to a relocation of unit work. Even
therefore poses a detriment to unit employees. 58 The work
unit employees. The decision did not involve a basic change
in Boeing s operation or any change in the enterprise s scope
methods or its products. 59 Boeing did not demonstrate that
labor costs were not a factor in the decision. In fact,
according to Boeing s CEO, the decision was motivated
escalating. Boeing also did not demonstrate that the Union
140 ( 2010) , incorporating by reference the
rationale of 354 NLRB No. 80, slip op. at 2 ( 2009) .
55 See 355 NLRB No.

56 See 355 NLRB No.
77 ( 2010) , incorporating by reference the
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 ( 2009) .
57 See 321 NLRB 616, 617 ( 1996) , enf.
denied in relevant part
134 F. 3d 125 ( 3d Cir. 1998) . Accord Acme Die Casting, 315
NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 ( 1994) .
58 See 321 NLRB at 617.
59 See Owens-Brockway Plastic Products, 311 NLRB at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00010905
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009. Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
B.
we conclude that Boeing s decision as to
second 787 line was a mandatory subj ect of
bargain about a mandatory subj ect of bargaining during the
term of a collective-bargaining agreement. 60 The Board will
unilaterally take the action in question. 61 In interpreting
the parties agreement, the relevant factors include: ( 1) the
wording of pertinent contractual provisions; ( 2) the parties
bargaining history; and ( 3) the parties past practice. 62
decision that the employer has implemented unilaterally. 63
Administrative Law Judge s decision that the union waived its
independent contractors to perform any of the Employer s
operations or phases thereof ( subcontracting) [ . ] 64 This
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
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
the exclusive right . . . to subcontract) .
64 See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00010906
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
subj ect to arbitration. 65 Although another contractual
contract. 66
In this case, Section 21. 7 of the parties agreement
specifically, precisely, and plainly 67 granted Boeing the
agreement. As in Ingham Regional Medical Center, the other
provisions of Section 21. 7 that required Boeing to provide the
The Union does not dispute that Section 21. 7 contains a
advantage of the waiver. Specifically, the Union maintains
is unlawfully motivated. But there is no authority for the
8( a) ( 3) violation. 68
The Union s other arguments against application of the
waiver are also unavailing. Thus, the Union asserts that the
negotiations for a new contract. However, during those midterm negotiations, their existing contract -- including
Section 21. 7 -- continued in effect. The Union also contends
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
1275 ( D. C. Cir. 1999) ( merely because the Respondent has
agreement to contract out work at any time, such right . . .
sanctions of the Act prohibiting it from discriminating)

; RGC
th
( USA) Mineral Sands, Inc. v. NLRB, 281 F. 3d 442, 450 ( 4 Cir.
2002) ( enforcing Board decision finding Section 8( a) ( 3)
protected activity) .
NLRB-FOIA-00010907
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -
contract s expiration in September 2012, but Boeing made its
South Carolina in mid 2011. 69 The Union s estoppel argument
also lacks merit. While Boeing took the position that the
notice and review provisions in Article 21. 7 did not apply
Moreover, Boeing s request to negotiate mid-term changes
to the parties agreement did not subj ect it to the
traditional Section 8( a) ( 5) bargaining obligations. 70 Absent
modifications. 71 For this reason, we do not reach the
First, with respect to the Section 8( a) ( 1) violations,
69 Thus, if there is a duty to bargain over a relocation
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
the following April) .
70 See St.
Barnabas Medical Center, 341 NLRB 1325, 1325 ( 2004)
( union did not incur traditional bargaining obligations by
reopener, and employer violated Section 8( a) ( 5) by
those negotiations) .
71 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) .
NLRB-FOIA-00010908
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
rights. 72 The notice reading is particularly effective if
to dispel the atmosphere of intimidation he created. 73
Finally, to remedy the Section 8( a) ( 3) violation, the
second line in Washington. At the time of the discriminatory
aircraft each month on the first line in Everett. At present,
problems with suppliers and FAA certification. Thus, the
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
information, and more important, reassurance) ; Federated
Logistics & Operations, 340 NLRB 255, 258 ( 2003) , affd. 400
F. 3d 920 ( D. C. Cir. 2005) ( employees will perceive that the
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
employees, drafted unlawful speech threatening j ob losses, and
employees) .
NLRB-FOIA-00010909
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
Sound and Portland facilities. 74
B. J. K.
ROFs - 9
H: ADV. 19-CA-32431. Response2. Boeing. dlw
74 At this time, we do not reach a decision on the Union s
request for preliminary inj unctive relief. The Region should
reassess whether Section 10( j ) relief is warranted after the
case is tried before the Administrative Law Judge. In the
regarding the chilling impact of Boeing s violative statements
and conduct to support the notice-reading remedy. This will
a subsequent Section 10( j ) proceeding that preliminary
inj unctive relief is j ust and proper.
NLRB-FOIA-00010910
.M E M
atcna C 1--,J1 q.
Cho -,(Ict
N W obs IN W autos I N M om es IN w source I Free C lassifieds Iseattletim es com
T he Seattle T im es C om pany
(Tj1)cScaffleirAtues
W i-rof E ightPulit-r Prim
Q uick links
T raffic I M ovies
B u sin ess
T ech n o lo g y
T oday's events
R estaurants
V ideo
P hotos
S earch
O urnetm rksites
Interactives I B logs I F orum s I S ubscriber S ervices
seattletim escom
I A dvanced
Y our account I L og in I C ontact us
TV W eekly m agazine D on't miss ouf on your FREE SAM PLES Sunday,June 12 & 19
-- 7 -
R ioting in V ancouver follow ing
tan ey P loss
er the V ancouver C a ucks' 4-0 loss
the Stanley C up
G of
am fans
e 7 of
Bs,
ostcrow
on inds
rioted In
Vfinal
ancouver,setting cars ablaze,
sm ashing w indow s and dancing & top
vehicles
O "num
111.1
-i" ed--'" "' '

Parents agonlze ; ; Ids'.eight
O L
9 na fy pul !,,,hd V )-d)

G Q C om m ents (150)
6 i:;V
0 E -r-lail article
14,g
5
Print
V a-,%
21".O, Zi!
Q S hare
tg
A lbaugh: B o ein g 's 'first p referen ce' is to build p lan es in

P u g et S o u n d region
w a-it i" oc' f- bw l-l rc
-- vl A ,j-, rcls (,E () J,T 1A lr, ),-- SO 0 VV,11h,1 1LO rstw e 5 w na-c
str, -,,s
l ,f , iew a g .) m n i,d s F.,c;
n x -).) V f! v-,k'IF "hinst";
T eem struggle
............oc
.
at'lght
Piloting barge. on tire C olum bia R iver
0S
B y the U ne
E"
B y D om inic G ates
S ea ttle T im es a ero sp a ce rep o rter
4 PR E V
Jim A lb au g h , ch ief ex ecu tiv e o f B o ein g C o m m ercial

A irp lan es, said M o n d ay th a t e v e n th o u g h th e
1 of 2
N EX T 1,
A vatar
?v ,T he
L , ditlllllk Exhibit!"
. . ......
. . . n s at E M P
ftyffom m w m anure
M orevideos
co m p an y is creatin g a n ew 7 8 7 D ream lin er a sse m b ly
lin e in S o u th C aro lin a, W ash in g to n sta te is his
p referred lo catio n fo r b u ild in g fu tu re a irp la n e s.
B u t h e a tta c h e d a co n d itio n : T h e P u g e t S o u n d reg io n
w ill b e fav o red o n ly if th e M ach in ists u n io n

m o d e ra te s its fu tu re w a g e d e m a n d s a n d a v o id s
strik es.
"T h is is w h e re o u r p eo p le w an t to live. T h is is w h ere
w e w an t to b e . W e'v e h ad a g re a t p a rtn e rsh ip w ith
ItM L
I 'A.
1
tD enlarge
K LN
th e p eo p le o f W ash in g to n , an d I h o p e it c o n tin u e s for
a lo n g , lo n g tim e," h e said . "I c a v e a t th a t b y sa y in g ,
it's g o in g to b e a m u ch m o re co m p etitiv e
en v iro n m en t o u t th e re in th e fu tu re. A n d w o rk
a n y p la c e is n o t a n en titlem en t."
In a n ex clu siv e in terv iew , A lb au g h a lso s a id th e
C o m p an y w ill o u tso u rc e le ss w o rk in th e fu tu re. H e
If y o u fan cy y o u rse lf a
stro n g ly h in ted th a t B o ein g w ill n e v e r a g a in

o u tso u rc e th e w in g s o f a n airp lan e, a s it d id th e 7 8 7
c o d e w arrio r, th in k a b o u t
w in g s to M itsu b ish i o f Ja p a n .
flex in g th o se n in ia co d in g
A lb au g h a lso said B o ein g n e e d s to re sto re th e
sk ills w ith A m azo n
c o rp o ra te cu ltu re th a t m a d e its "ico n ic e n g in e e rs" as
in flu en tial a s its b u sin e ss e x e c u tiv e s.
H e said th at if B o ein g w in s th e A ir F o rce ta n k e r
R elated
M ak e an Im p act, C h eck olut
C o n tract, E v erett w ill g e t a n e x p a n d e d ro le. A n d h e
E 33W atch the extended interview
w w w .a m a zon.ccm /ca
e x p e c ts B o ein g o n c e ag ain to o u tp ro d u c e arch riv al

A irb u s in a co u p le of y e a rs.
a S o keeping B oeing happy w ill be easy. right'? R ight? I
T alton
B o ein g 's n ex t n ew airp lan e a fte r th e D ream lin er w ill
c, A rchive I B oeing C om m ercial chief C arson replaced
by defense head A lbaugh
d eterm in e th e fu tu re o f a e ro sp a c e in th e P u g e t
S o u n d reg io n A lb au g h said th a t w h e n th e tim e
c o m e s to c h o o se a final a sse m b ly site fo r th a t p la n e ,
Jim A lbaugh
h e d o e sn 't w an t to h o ld a n o p e n C o m p etitio n a s th e
co m p an y did in 2 0 0 3 fo r th e 7 8 7 D ream lin er.
Education. B achelors degrees in m athem atics and phys" from W

illam ette
from C
olum bia
and
unw ersay,
a m asters degree in civil en gineering
U nN ersity
"if I'm in v o lv ed , I'm n o t g o in g to h a v e a co m p etitio n
re e rs .
C hief executive of B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes
B orn: m ay1950inR ichland
engineer on
as a project
1975-1996B egan hiscareer w ithR ocketilyne
NLRB-FOIA-00010911
like that," A lbaugh said. "T he com m itm ent I can

give
you is that the first preference is to put the w ork
here."
H e said B oeing didn't pick S outh C arolina for
expansion last year because of W ashington's tax
rates or regulatory system . N or w as ita q uestion of
chasing low w ages.
to
the board that itchoose C harleston over E verett for a

second 787 final-assem bly line.
part ofR ockw ell

1996: B oeing acquired R ockw ell's aerospace and defense businesses,
including R ocketdyne, for $3 billion

1098-2002: President, then C E O ,of Boeing's spa" and com m unications
group H e led a Push for grow th in com m ercial and m ilitary satellite and
rcicket-launch system B ut the satellite division ran into serious qualry,

issues,and the m arket for com m ercialsatellites collapsed after
the dot-com
bubble burst.in 2002 and 2003, B oeing took m ore than $4 billion in w rite-
dow ns on its satellite and launch businesses
"T he overriding factor w as not the business clim ate.

A nd itw as not the w ages w e an- paying today,"
A lbaugh said. "it w as thatw e can't afford to have a
w ork stoppage every three years A nd w e can't affO rd

to continue the rate of escalation of w ages
A lbaugh said itw as he w ho last fall recom m ended
presi
dentof
ofthe
operat
ions on
cleanup
Rear
o csiktee tc
H anford
nucl
lias
H eiwAas
Dneer
eltRa ocket
an and
rocket
engi
and ldyne,
s
atprogram
e, ""
by then
of
and the space shuttle H e r -e to becom e president
]:,,V a
t3 f :
-t,
L -, V le t: sit
0in, t . _ ?
5,
L F
11114
1 il 7 i 1114
V 4 -
E n tertain m en t I T o p V id eo I W orld I O ffb eat V id eo I S ci-
T ech
2002-2D D 9: CE O of B oeing's defense and space division H e shifted its
focus from building airplanes to designing com plex integrated defense
system Several m ajordefense projects failed or w ere severely out back.
m ost recently the A rm y's Future C om batSystem s program B ut profits from
other p rojects and from m ature delense program rem ained steady
A lbaugh w asn'theld personally responsible for tw o m ajor scandals that
w as barred from governm ent launhea
B oeiet
ngary
tenure
n hi
earlhs
y iaft
enupt
for
20ed
m ont
ers usi
ng p ropri
Lockheed! Martin data in bidding for
federalrocket-launch contracts, and itlostthe onginal2001 A irFor" tanker
contract aftera B oeing executive gave illegalfavors to a d efense.

procurem ent o fficial
S eptem ber 2009: C E O of B oeing C om m ercial A irplanes.S
shopping
his
appointm ent. A lbaughhas gathered around him an advison;gro., .1 form er

B oeing executives.shuffled his leadership team and h eld a m anagem entstrategy retreat L ast week.B oeing gave A llbaugh a special b onus of m ore
than $3 m illionin shares in recognition ofhis new role.on top ofhis regular
annual bonus ofm ore than $1 m illion inshares
11at G lassy b ab y glo"', "or
a
I t-le sceo rld s S a le oil
sa tu rd l., J jop 18
In the interview M onday, he conceded that the choice 5- 8-9
of C harleston, w here B oeing m ust build a new factory
and hire w orkers from an inexperienced labor pool, is
expensive and risky B ut he said the cost of the strike in fall 2008 outw eighed that.
O vkaeo bprnf;/ t% un,
H illf-),arl, 3." R., '4,n
A lthough m any union m em bers believe that the decision to go to C harleston w as m ade long before last
fall's final negotiations w ith the M achinists, A lbaugh insisted itw as not.
"Iw ent into this feeling that ifw e could get it done here, w e could save the com pany a lot of m oney,"
A lbaugh said. 'T here w ere tw o things w e needed, and w e couldn't get those things d one
H e repeatedly m ade clear that those tw o things - first, no strikes; second, low ered escalation ofw ages in
the future - rem ain d eal breakers for placing future w ork here W ithout that, he said, the com pany w on't
be com petitive not only against A irbus but also against loom ing threats from planem akers in C anada,
B razil, C hina and perhaps R ussia.
6,Lxm ,
S"A if?n"PPI g
C -d e,- furn- hw s
"T his is a great w orkforce here T hey are m agicians," A lbaugh said. "M y job is to m ake sure they have
jobs five years from now , 10 years from now , 20 years from now .
"ifw e don't have a com pany, nobody has jobs," he said. 'T h at's the w orst outcom e for P uget S ound."
A lbaugh said he w ill w ork w ith the M achinists union to achieve his goals "T here are m any things w e
agree on. I hope there are m ore things w e can agree on," he said.
C ertainly, w hen the M achinist contract talks next com e around in 2012, the union faces the h arsh real'ty
that B oeing has a ready alternative ifthey d o notagree.
B oeing's other union, the S ociety of P rofessional E ngineering E m ployees in A erospace (SPE E A ), w ill be
pleased that A lbaugh, w ho started as an engineer, proclaim ed an overarching respect for that discipline
and said he w ill elevate the engineering role at B oeing.
"W hen I grew up, the sheriff in tow n w as the chief engineer," he said.
,k0_U I N I A
O n the 787 program , he said, o utsourcing decisions w ere driven by the com pany's business decision
m akers rather than its engineers
"W e outsourced too m uch. ...W e didn't consider the extent of the risk w e'd take on by going outside,"
A lbaugh said "W e w ill m ake sure the voice of the engineers is m uch m ore involved in the decision m aking
as w e go forw ard."
I
2
3
W om en trust G PS, drive SUV into M ercer Slough
Ugly outbur, in B C after C anucks loss
W om an ch arg ed w ith b elo w -th e-b elt a ssa u lt I T he
T o protect its exclusive technical skills and intellectual property, he said B oeing w ill "build the w alls around
H as Ichiro fo u n d so m eth in g ? M arin ers su re h o p e
so I M arin ers B log
W ife to rm en ted for 8 y ears b efo re callin g 911
p ro secu to rs sa y
M arin ers call u p to p p ro sp ect D u stin A ckley after 3-
1 w in
M an ju m p s to d eath from d o w n to w n S eattle
h o tel I T h e B lo tter
H ow lo n g w ill y o u live? D ep en d s o n th e co u n ty
A P so u rce
th o s e v e ry h ig h ."
H e w e n t o n to list s o m e th in g s th a t B o e in g sh o u ld " n e v e r o u ts o u rc e ," in c lu d in g a irp la n e flig h t c o n tro ls, th e
w in g s a n d th e c o m p o site fu s e la g e .
th e c o m p o s ite fu s e la g e in Italy ,
A sk e d w h y B o e in g is h a v in g th e 7 8 7 w in g s m a d e in J a p a n a n d p a rts o f
A lb a u g h sa id p o in te d ly , "W e ll, w e 'll b u ild o th e r a irp la n e s ."
B lo tter
H o u se D erris to rrieet ab o u t W ein er
c a se
H is c o m m e n t stro n g ly s u g g e s te d th a t th o s e p a rts w o n 't b e o u ts o u rc e d
10
fo r fu tu re a irp la n e s .
O n th e c o m p a n y 's c o m p le x re la tio n sh ip w ith C h in a , A lb a u g h s a id C h in a w ill b e c o m e a c o m p e titiv e
C alifo rn ia d efen siv e tack le p ick s H u sk ies I L JW
fo o tb all
M o st v ie w e d im a g e s
a irp la n e m a k e r a n d y e t a ls o o ffe rs a m a s s iv e m a rk e t o p p o rtu n ity
W h e n th e U .S
re c e n tly so ld B o e in g m is sile s to T a iw a n , it d re w th re a ts o f b o y c o tt fro m
C h in a
A n d th e
p ro p o s e d C h in e s e C 9 1 9 s in g le -a isle je t c o u ld b e a th re a t to B o e in g 's 7 3 7 . A t th e s a m e tim e , C h in a w ill
b u y 2 0 0 a irp la n e s a y e a r fo r th e n e x t 2 0 y e a rs , a n d
B o e in g w a n ts to su p p ly a b ig p o rtio n o f th o s e .
"It's a b ig m a rk e t fo r u s," A lb a u g h sa id . T h e U .S . a n d C h in e s e " e c o n o m ie s a re d e p e n d e n t o n e a c h
o th e r
NLRB-FOIA-00010912
now and for the long haul. T here's a lot to be lost on b oth sides ifw e don't have a good relationship."
H e said to "stay tuned" for the appointm ent of a C hinese-A m erican executive to help prom ote sales in
C hina.
O n the A ir F orce tanker com petition, A lbaugh said the decision to cancel the 2008 contract aw ard to
N orthrop G rum m an w as "nothing to do w ith politicV but w as due to a "flaw ed" procurem ent selection
process.
A nd if B oeing w ins the new tanker com petition, he m ade clear it w ill m ean m ore w ork for E verett than
originally envisaged in the first tanker com petition in 2001.
T o m ake the B oeing bid m ore c ost-efficient, A lbaugh said, m any of the structural m odifications to the 767
w ill be done on the assem bly line in E verett, a lthough the very specific refueling equipm ent - hose,
drogue and fuel-tank bladder - w ill be installed in W ichita, K an.
In other good n ew s for B oeing's local w orkers, A lbaugh said the R enton 737 factory w ill definitely not slow
production this year, a nd that the rate m ight even go up
"It's a question of do w e keep itthe sam e or increase," he said.
R egarding the current com petition w ith A irbus, A lbaugh noted thatbeing second in a d uopoly m arket is
equivalent to being in last place. A irbus h as delivered m ore planes than B oeing every year since 2003.
"Idon't w ant to be in last place," A lbaugh said. "W hen w e start taking d elivery of the 7 87s in quantity,
starting in 2012, 2013, w e should take the num ber-one position."
D om inic G a tes.206-464-2963 o r dqa tes(D sea ttletim escom
53 E-m ailarticle
6 Print
a Share
M ore from our netw ork
M orB .frqm .9heW eb
'R idiculous': M an tossed off plane for dropping obscenity

From Seattle TimesN ation
& W orld
EasyJet to offer nights from Southend airport From Financial
Tim es
Juror and defendantguilty after Facebook chat From Seattle

Times Business& Technology
M icrosoft: a dangerfor Skype users? From SeattleTim es
Business& Technology
Tau's new line ofsexy Brazilian bikinis heats things up for
Boeing Scores Touchdow n in India From The MotleyFool
y
nd
sum m er From NW sourosD ailFi
Foreign dem and for w eapons keeps defense firm s healthy
From Seattle TimesBusiness& Technology
W here The Rich A re M oving FromcNBc
Q antas C uts $750 m illion in Spending; to Cancel O rders
From C N B C
BofA to give aw ay houses From BankRatecom
M ore B u sin ess & T ech n o lo g y
U PD EA
0946A M
E xxon M obil w ins ruling In A laska oil spill case
U PD A-09
T E
32A M
B ank stocks push indexes higher; oil prices dip
U PD A-T08:
E
04
A M

Ford C EO M ulally gets $56.5M in stock aw ard
U PD A.T07E54
AM
U nderw ater m ortgages rise as hom e prices fall
N E W-09
43 AM
W arner B ros. to offer m ovie rentals on F acebook
M ore B usiness & Technology headlines
C o m m en ts (150)
T here itw as, the first shot fired over the bow N ow its up to the U nion to decide if they w antto exist or
1 Jum ptom m m ent
expire. M y bet is they choose to...

T hat is good new s for the hard w orking E ngineers at B oeing w ho have not gone on strike once. I think
J-P i- -t
B oeing know s that the future ofthe com pany.
I really hope that B oeing once again to regain #1 position by its engineering resources. T here have
J.m o 1-nim -11
been so m any m istakes in the past and w e also.. F G !,drM ;!"- ;W c) in C .) PIA b,
R ead all com m ents I S hare y our thoughts
O urnetw orksites
r seattletim escom
The StiattlL Tinies C om pany

A bout the com pany
I Advanced
Services
Y our account /Log in
H om e
Local
N atiorifflorld
B usinessfrech
Entertainm ent
Living
Travel
Jobs
A utos
H om es
R entals
C lassifieds
Shopping
Personals
Subsr )er Services
Subscribe
e-Editon
Pay foryour subscription
Subscriber rew ards
Tem porary stops
O ther editions
NLRB-FOIA-00010913
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Boeing Co.
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 12:09 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Omberg, Bob
Subject: Boeing Co.
In case youre interested --
http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/home/search?q=Boeing&url=
Boeing Executive says S.C. is cornerstone of Companys future
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/business/11boeing.html?src=busln
excellent summary of problems Dreamliner has faced in the last year, including recent fire, Rolls Royce engine problem,
and problems with Italian company producing the tails
NLRB-FOIA-00010914
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
Monday, November 22, 2010 7:50 AM
To:
Subject:
FW: "Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American Workers and Managers"
-----Original Message----From: Szapiro, Miriam
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2010 8:18 PM
To: Willen, Debra L; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American Workers and Managers
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/business/21shelf.html?_r=1&ref=books
NLRB-FOIA-00010915
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FW: Boeing's South Carolina facility
Attachments:
1109001312.jpg
To: Katz, Judy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Omberg, Bob; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing's South Carolina facility
NLRB-FOIA-00010916
NLRB-FOIA-00010917
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
Friday, January 28, 2011 4:06 PM
To:
Subject:
FW: Boeing
Attachments:
Boeing memo for your approval. I hope to talk to Kilberg tomorrow. Ill keep you posted
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 3:57 PM
Cc: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing
Ive made Jaymes changes and put the draft into final. Here it is
NLRB-FOIA-00010918
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010919
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010920
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010921
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010922
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010923
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010924
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010925
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010926
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010927
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010928
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010929
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010930
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010931
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010932
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010933
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010934
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010935
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010936
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010937
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010938
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010939
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010940
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010941
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010942
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010943
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010944
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010945
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010946
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010947
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010948
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010949
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010950
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010951
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010952
Microsoft Outlook
From:
David Campbell <campbell@workerlaw.com>
Sent:
To:
Kearney, Barry J.
Cc:
Corson Christopher; Jude Bryan; Carson Glickman-Flora; Solomon, Lafe E.
billion.
South Carolina."
Thanks, Dave
NLRB-FOIA-00010953
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
NLRB-FOIA-00010954
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
To:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject:
When convenient let's talk Monday morning
Barry,
all along.
NLRB-FOIA-00010955
more time.
Sent from my iPad
Christopher Corson
General Counsel
301-967-4510 (office)
301-967-4594 (fax)
202-368-6484 (cell)
_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00010956
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent:
To:
Kearney, Barry J.
Subject:
RE: Call from Boeing
I'm here if you want to talk.
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 2:37 PM
Subject: FW: Call from Boeing
When convenient let's talk Monday morning
Barry,
all along.
NLRB-FOIA-00010957
more time.
Sent from my iPad
Christopher Corson
General Counsel
301-967-4510 (office)
301-967-4594 (fax)
202-368-6484 (cell)
_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00010958
Microsoft Outlook
Farrell, Ellen
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: Boeing
ADV.19-CA-32431.Response2.Boeing.dlw.doc; ADV.19-CA-32431.factsheet.Boeing.dlw.doc
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Nancy
Attached are the memo, which issued yesterday, and the fact sheet.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
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,
Exemption 5
. Thanks, Lafe
NLRB-FOIA-00010959
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010960
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010961
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010962
Advice Memorandum
DATE:
April 11, 2011
S.A.M.
TO:
Region 19
FROM:
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
line.
activity.
the agreement.

NLRB-FOIA-00010963
Case 19-CA-32431
- 2 -


FACTS

this Agreement[.]
ten employees.

Section 21.7
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00010964
Case 19-CA-32431
- 3 -


In

For example,




strike.

is a big deal[.]

NLRB-FOIA-00010965
Case 19-CA-32431
- 4 -
strike zone[.]


Kiga
above.
summit in Chicago.

IAM representatives

This was the first
ended.
1 In his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
2
Union had struck.

in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
NLRB-FOIA-00010966
Case 19-CA-32431
- 5 -
future strikes.

Doug Kight.
labor relations.

At a subsequent
supplier issues.

IAM

Boeing agreed to

customers.

During August,
NLRB-FOIA-00010967
Case 19-CA-32431
- 6 -

Meanwhile, the
assembly line.



The Union said

At the end of the


On September

But truthfully, it
NLRB-FOIA-00010968
Case 19-CA-32431
- 7 -

So weve become an
reliable supplier.
do.
weeks.

Carolina.
on October 1.

The Union

In

The Union
control.

When a Union
would get more.

NLRB-FOIA-00010969
Case 19-CA-32431
- 8 -

The Union

Also,
Carolina.
negotiations.


Conner


committee.
generation product.

Indeed, the

get back to him.
NLRB-FOIA-00010970
Case 19-CA-32431
- 9 -

We would obviously


...
And so some of the
Sound.

Our customers
couple of weeks.

Michalski explained
of conduct.
not respond.

He wanted

Keating did not
their State.

On
seven years.
NLRB-FOIA-00010971
Case 19-CA-32431
- 10 -

In a press

The managers were

line.


The
our customers eyes.


customers.
NLRB-FOIA-00010972
Case 19-CA-32431
- 11 -
Jim Albaugh.

The

history.
haul.
with the union.

of wages.
Charleston.

... And


NLRB-FOIA-00010973
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -

It was that
three years.
schedule.

Approximately 1,740
approximately 60%.
ACTION


Then, when Boeing

It also
election.
years.
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00010974
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
the Union.



Nor could Boeing
months.
problems.

activity.
rights.

NLRB-FOIA-00010975
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -

The Court


supplier strategy.9
plant.
employment.10
activity.12
Ibid.
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
See id. at 520.
10
See id. at 520-21.
11
See id. at 521.
12
See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00010976
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
date.13

Thus, telling

unlawful threats.17
13
14
th
mem. 50 F.3d 1037 (11
1997).
15
Aelco Corp., 326 NLRB 1262, 1265 (1998).

See also Dorsey
th
part 233 F.3d 831 (4
16
311 NLRB at 1200.

17
unionized).
18
Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00010977
Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -

An employer may
to predicting

Some statements

Others were
testifies.21

And statements
(1)

During the call,
Sound.22
(2)

The
19
20
consequences).
21
22
23
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00010978
Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -
(3)
strikes.25
(4)
activity.26
II.

Instead of
24
to employees.
25

If
26
NLRB-FOIA-00010979
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -

Future work
desirable 787 jobs.

layoffs.
layoffs.
implemented.

In


its nonunion plant.

employees.30
27
28
Ibid.
29
th
Cir. 1990).
30
See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00010980
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
have performed.




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

See also
32
33
34
35
NLRB-FOIA-00010981
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
activity.36
strike.
strike.38

And the Board has
right to strike.
36
37
380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38
See id. at 283-85.
39
See id. at 284.
40
See ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00010982
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
substantial.42


Boeing has

The substantial

In addition, Boeing
Washington.

In
striking.

th
41
See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
42
Cir.
See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
43
NLRB-FOIA-00010983
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent.44
rights.45



the employees.46
employee rights.47
Paper.

Second, Boeings

position.
44
228, 231 (1963).

th
(4
Cir. 2000).
45
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
46
47

See also
NLRB-FOIA-00010984
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -


And the many
with the union.48


Section 8(a)(3).
48
49
NLRB-FOIA-00010985
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
subject.
A.

Alternatively, the

unit jobs.54
50
51
52
Ibid.
53
54
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00010986
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
bargaining unit.55
an expanded unit.56
jobs.57

Even

The work
unit employees.


In fact,
escalating.
55
56
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
57
134 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998).

NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
58
59
NLRB-FOIA-00010987
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009.
Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
B.

The Board will

In interpreting

This
60
61
See id. at 812, fn. 19.
62
64
See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00010988
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
contract.66
agreement.




65
Id. at 1260.
66
Id. at 1262.
67
68
th
Cir.
NLRB-FOIA-00010989
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -

also lacks merit.


Absent
modifications.71
69

70
71
NLRB-FOIA-00010990
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
rights.72


At present,

Thus, the
72
the Act).
73
1093 (1996).
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00010991
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.J.K.
ROFs - 9
74

The Region should

In the

This will
NLRB-FOIA-00010992
Microsoft Outlook
Kearney, Barry J.
Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 5
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: FW: Boeing
Has someone had a conversation with Nancy about how we want to handle the inquiries regarding this?
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
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010993
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: Boeing
What is the fact sheet going to be used for?
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
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,
Exemption 5
Thanks, Lafe
NLRB-FOIA-00010994
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Garza, Jose
FW : new draft
Boeingrelease.doc
Subject: new draft
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00010995
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00010996
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Cleeland, Nancy
RE: new draft
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Abruzzo, Jennifer
What do you think,
Exemption 5
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00010997
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Should we add also,

Exemption 5
________________________________
Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: new draft
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00010998
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: new draft
Exemption 5
________________________________________
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Abruzzo, Jennifer
What do you think,
Exemption 5
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
1
NLRB-FOIA-00010999
Exemption 5
________________________________________
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Should we add also,

Exemption 5
________________________________
Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: new draft
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00011000
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; W agner, Anthony R.
That all sounds great to me.
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00011001
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
W agner, Anthony R.
boeing operations in s.c.
do business there:
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00011002
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
estlundc@exchange.law.nyu.edu
Boeing
Cindy, I doubt that you have missed all of the publicity and discussion surrounding my authorization of an 8(a)(1) and (3)
complaint against Boeing for deciding to move the 787 second line from Seattle to SC. I am on the road a lot in May and
June giving speeches, and I would like to refer to your 1993 Texas Law Review article in discussing and supporting the
rationale for the complaint. But I don't want to do so without your permission; pretty soon, if not already, my name will
be synonomous with Craig's. Hope all is well. Lafe
NLRB-FOIA-00011003
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Estlund, Cynthia [estlundc@exchange.law.nyu.edu]
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: Boeing
Oh, no, I haven't missed that! I'll admit that, upon first hearing of the Boeing complaint, I did think
immediately of that old article of mine (which I'm happy to have resurrected), only to find that others
at the Bd had also thought of it! John Colwell has already apparently pointed reporters in that
direction. This is by far the most notice the piece has ever gotten!
Will you be at the lunch thing on Wed. (re: China)?
Cindy
From: Solomon, Lafe E. [Lafe.Solomon@nlrb.gov]
To: Estlund, Cynthia
Subject: Boeing
NLRB-FOIA-00011004
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
'estlundc@exchange.law.nyu.edu'
Re: Boeing
Yes I will see you on wed. Thanks, Lafe
--------------------------
From: Estlund, Cynthia <estlundc@exchange.law.nyu.edu>
Sent: Sat Apr 30 13:16:47 2011
Subject: RE: Boeing
Cindy
Subject: Boeing
NLRB-FOIA-00011005
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Estlund, Cynthia [estlundc@exchange.law.nyu.edu]
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: Boeing
Great -- looking forward to it!
Subject: Re: Boeing
Yes I will see you on wed. Thanks, Lafe
--------------------------
From: Estlund, Cynthia <estlundc@exchange.law.nyu.edu>
Sent: Sat Apr 30 13:16:47 2011
Subject: RE: Boeing
Cindy
Subject: Boeing
NLRB-FOIA-00011006
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kearney, Barry J.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
NLRB-FOIA-00011007
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00011008
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011009
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011010
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011011
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Solomon:
tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00011012
April 27, 2011
Page 2
back to work.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
NLRB-FOIA-00011013
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00011014
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Liebman, W ilma B.
RE: Misc.
TNR-Judis_5-26-11[1].pdf
Nonresponsive
NLRB-FOIA-00011015
symbolism is entirely to the point. e
symbolism of this present raid says: His-
toryis not on bin Ladens side. Historyis
on the side of democracy and freedom.
History will not be deterred. Yes, we
should ask ourselves: Does it make sense
to speak about abstractions like his-
tory? Does the relentlessness of a man-
hunt contain anydeeper meanings at all?
But there is an answer to these questions.
e abstractions express a meaning if we
choose to endow them with meaning.
Ten years of relentless man-hunting sug-
gest that we have chosen to do so.
Obamas speech on Sunday night was
magnificentalthough I wish he had
mentioned the Iraq war, which, once we
had overthrown Saddam, became a war
directed largelyagainst Al Qaeda, specif-
icallythe branch that was led bybin Lad-
ens man in Mesopotamia, Abu Musab
Al Zarqawi. e war against Zarqawi and
Labor Intensive
his movement became, for a while, a cen-
tral front in the larger war between Al
Qaedas version of Islamism and Ameri-
cas version of liberal democracy.
But I am quibbling about the past. e
president spoke eloquentlyenough about
Americas victoryover bin Laden himself.
e symbolism is unmistakable. e fan-
tasy caliphate is not going to be created.
e power of a democratic republic can-
not be denied. at was the message. We
are winning. Al Qaeda is losing. is is
not just a matter of circumstance or luck.
We have reason to bang our drums, and
people all over the world, and especially
in the Muslim world, have reason to re-
spond with a feeling of hope for them-
selves and for everyone else. Or rather, we
are right to believe this, and other people
are right to believe likewise, so long as
we continue to choose to be relentless.
P B
6 M ,
B claim that if Boeing
loses, no companywill be free to hire or
fire workers without second-guessing
from the . But theres another, un-
stated, reason why Republi-
cans and conservatives are so
worried about this case. Since
the passage of the Taft-Hartley
law in 1947, which allowed
states to pass right-to-work
laws making union organi-
zation more difficult, the
South and parts of the Rocky
Mountain and Prairie West have become
a haven for private rms attempting to
avoid unionization. at has had a pro-
found political impact.
The popularity of New Deal liberal-
ismfrom the to Social Security,
Anthony Russo
the Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers, and Boe-
ing itself, which called it legally frivo-
lous. Nine Republican attorneys general
A , Lafe Solomon,
have demanded that the withdraw
the acting general counsel of

the complaint, while others on the right
the National Labor Relations

have suggested darkly that the agencys
Board (), issued a com-

real motives are political. is is nothing
plaint against Boeing. Two years ago, the

more than a political favor for the unions
companyhad announced it was transfer-

who are supporting President Obamas re-
ring the production of 2,000 airplanes

election campaign, charged South Caro-
from a unionized plant in Puget Sound,

lina Republican Senator Jim DeMint.
Washington, to a non-union plant out-

In fact, the President and the White
side Charleston, South Carolina. Accord-

House had nothing to do with the deci-
ing to Solomons complaint, what made

sion. As for Solomon, he is a 39-year civil
this decision illegal was the companys

servant with no historyof labor militancy.
motive. High-level Boeing ocials had

His complaint stems from a fairlyuncon-
stated publicly that the move was being

troversial reading of the 1935 National
made in response to strikesfour over

Labor Relations Act (), and its sub-
the previous two decadesled by the

sequent interpretation by the courts, ac-
machinists union at the Puget Sound

cording to Karl Klare of Northeastern
facility. If Boeing had said the move was

Universitys School of Law. Under the
dictated by costs or by the weather, the

, employers are guiltyof an unfair
labor practice if theyinterfere with, re-
would not have cried foul.
Forty or fifty years ago, these kinds

strain, or coerce employees in the ex-
of cases were common. Now, there are

ercise of their right to form,
fewer of thembut not because compa-

join or assist labor organiza-
nies are better-behaved. Ever since the

tions, to bargain collectively
Reagan administration, which crippled

. . . and to engage in other con-
the , companies have been free to

certed activities for the pur-
operate with impunity, moving plants or

pose of collective bargaining
simply threatening to do so in order to

or other mutual aid or pro-
quell organizing eorts. ats whySolo-

tection. at means its ille-
mons complaint, which might have gone

gal for a business to threaten
unnoticed a generation ago, may be the

or penalize workers for seeking to orga-
most radical thing the Obama adminis-

nize a union or going on strike.
According to Solomons complaint,
tration has done.
there is compelling evidence that Boe-
T has, predict-
ing did just that. Solomon cited ve pub-
ably, provoked howls of outrage from

lic statements by Boeing top executives
Te most radical thingthe Obama
administration hasdone.
saying that they were transferring the
jobs to South Carolina to avoid strikes.
For instance, on October 21, 2009, Boe-
ing CEO Jim McNerney posted a state-
ment on the companys intranet, which
is accessible to all employees, attrib-
uting the decision to strikes happen-
ing every three or four years in Puget
Sound. Such a comment can be seen as
an attempt to interfere with the right to
strike: It implies that if employees do so,
they will lose work to non-unionized
plants in other states.
Solomons complaint is not a ruling,
but is instead more akin to a criminal in-
dictment, in that it merely seeks to es-
tablish whether there are reasonable
grounds for believing an employer has
committed an unfair labor practice. By
that standard, the complaint is entirely
fair. It sets in motion a trial byan admin-
istrative law judge in Seattle on June 14.
e loser can appeal that decision to the
, whose decision can in turn be ap-
pealed before a federal court.
If the case goes that far, Boeing stands
a decent chance of prevailing. To win,
the would need to show that Boe-
ing executives intended their words to
have a chilling eect on the machinists
rightsbut sinister motives are notori-
ouslydicult to prove, even when state-
ments like those of McNerneyare in the
public record. Ultimately, the cases fate
may rest with the political inclinations
of the judges. In a 1982 case, Weather
Tamer v. NLRB, judges on the gener-
ally conservative eleventh circuit threw
out an ruling against an employer.
e court had been presented with a re-
cord of a supervisor stating that if work-
ers joined a union, the company would
close the plant but ruled that this state-
ment was not sucient to establish a
motive to chill unionism.
T N R
NLRB-FOIA-00011016
and the surrounding area have been
killed in attacks over the past decade,
and hundreds have been wounded. But
the rockets true threat is their ability to
terrorize. Much of Sderots middle class
has left. Thousands of residents have
been treated for trauma; a generation of
children suers from stuttering and bed-
wetting. Sderot, then, is Israels night-
marethe antiTel Aviv. Here there is
no pretending you can avoid the siege.
After the Gaza war of 2009, the assaults
became less frequent, but missiles still fall
intermittently. When that happens, the
Sderot Cinematheque moves screenings
to a smaller theater with thicker walls
and a steel roof. Invariably, attendance
declines, sometimes for days or even
weeks. Still, Benny Cohen, the Cinema-
theques director, insists on running the
theater as though it were in Tel Aviv. For
him, the Cinematheque is part of Sderots
battle for survival, and so he is constantly
devising new projects and inviting for-
eign directors to town, such as the Coen
brothers, who are coming to Israel for all
of one daythis month. His next big event
is a lm festival about peripheral areas
around the world. Its the onlyfree festi-
val in Israel, he says proudly. You must
comeit will be a real celebration.
S a history of
improbable cultural vitality. It looks
like a dump, but theres so much creativ-
ity here, says Laura Bialis, a documen-
Sderot lookslike a dump, but theresso much creativityhere.
tary lmmaker from Los Angeles who
moved to Sderot almost four years ago.
Every teenager I met seemed to want
the minimum wage, and progressive

Town and Country
to be a rock singer or an actor. She de-
taxationwas rooted in the unionized

Sderot and the f
cided to make a lm about Sderots rock
uture ofIsrael.
and primarilywhite working class of the
musicians, and fell in love with one of
North. at working class has been dec-
A, the southern Israeli town

them, Avi Vaknin, who proposed to her
imated bythe movement of private man-
of Sderot hosted its eighth annual

in an air raid shelter. There wasnt a
ufacturing rms to non-union states and
French film festival, which was an

Qassam attack, she explains. Avi was
overseas. It has been supplanted politi-
achievement more impressive than

just being dramatic.
callybya private sector non-union work-

it sounds. Sderot is a small town, and it
The guiding spirit of Sderots rock
ing class more attuned to divisions of

is also a poor one; it has only 20,000 res-
scene is Chaim Uliel, whose band, Sfa-
race and religion than of class. at, and

idents, many of them immigrants from
tayim (Lips), brought Moroccan music
the white Southern backlash to the civil

former Soviet Asian republics.
into the mainstream in the late 1980s and
rights movement, were major factors in
But Sderots biggest challenge may be

nurtured a generation of local musicians.
the growth of a new Republican conser-

the missiles. For the past ten years, not
ey went on to found bands like Tipex
vatismand in Americas tilt rightward

long after the beginning of the Second
(White Out) and Knesiyat Hasechel (Ca-
over the last thirtyyears.
Intifada in 2000, Hamas has launched

thedral of the Mind), which created a
The Boeing case, then, isnt just

thousands of Qassam missiles over the
fusion between Western rock and Sep-
about corporate prerogatives. Its also

border from Gaza, barely a mile away.
hardic ethnic music. Dont just mimic
about the future of American politics.

Qassams are typically homemade70
Western trends, Uliel urged his protgs,
With Solomons complaint, the

pounds of steel inserted with nails and
take the music you know from the syna-
has taken a small but definite step to-

bolts, as in the bombs used in suicide at-
gogue and the home.
ward restoring an earlier Americaone

tacks. When a strike is imminent, a calm
Two years ago, however, Uliel left
where politics wasnt dominated by the

female voice announces over loudspeak-
Sderot and moved to a town near Tel
Chamber of Commerce or demagogues

ers, Color Red, Color Red, giving res-
Aviv. e news was so shocking that the
like Jim DeMint, and workers had rights

idents 15 seconds to run to one of the
countrys largest newspaper, Yediot Aha-
that mattered.
ronot, devoted the cover of its weekend
manyshelters around town.
Some two-dozen residents of Sderot

magazine to an interview with Uliel, the
J B. J
L B
T N R M ,
NLRB-FOIA-00011017
Microsoft Outlook
Solomon, Lafe E.
Re: seattletimes.com: Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Susan is my biggest fan and chuck will probably be pretty gentle. On the other hand, I am
speaking to the Chamber tomorrow. Wish me luck.
--------------------------
From: rich ahearn <richahearn@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed May 04 21:41:24 2011
Subject: Re: seattletimes.com: Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case
Lafe,
Thanks for the heads up;
Exemption 5
May 16 is the conference call with ALJ Lana Parke; might learn more then. Still
expect bunch of motions...we'll see.
I too am astonished at the level of vitriol...really underscores how powerful interests can
get politicians to do their bidding. At least Kilberg remains very professional, courteous in
our dealings.
I am speaking with Chuck Cohen and Susan Davis; will be curious about their observations.
I tip my hat to you for remaining calm and steadfast in the face of all this...pretty
impressive.
Cheers,
Rich
On May 4, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Solomon, Lafe E. wrote:
> Rich, before I forget, I wanted you to know that

Exemption 5
Even I
> underestimated the vitriol that the complaint generated but hopefully
> your attys are able to withstand the attacks to come. Hope the
> conference goes well. Lafe
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To: Solomon, Lafe E.
> Sent: Wed May 04 19:35:14 2011
> Subject: seattletimes.com: Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787
> case
>
> This message was sent to you by
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
NLRB-FOIA-00011018
> Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case
>
> In a forceful letter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), top Boeing lawyer
Michael Luttig rejected the labor agency's complaint against the company's opening of a South
Carolina 787 plant, writing that its charges "fundamentally misquote or mischaracterize
statements by Boeing executives."
>
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014961873_bo
> eing05.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.
>
> ======================================================================
>
>
>
>
NLRB-FOIA-00011019
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Re: seattletimes.com: Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case
Yikes!! I have a much friendlier audience...over 300 registrants this year...a big uptick
from last year.
Good luck tomorrow!
On May 4, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Solomon, Lafe E. wrote:
> Susan is my biggest fan and chuck will probably be pretty gentle. On the other hand, I am
speaking to the Chamber tomorrow. Wish me luck.
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: rich ahearn <richahearn@gmail.com>
> To: Solomon, Lafe E.
> Sent: Wed May 04 21:41:24 2011
> Subject: Re: seattletimes.com: Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in
> 787 case
>
> Lafe,
Thanks for the heads up;
Exemption 5
May 16 is the conference call with ALJ Lana Parke; might learn more then.
Still expect bunch of motions...we'll see.
> I too am astonished at the level of vitriol...really underscores how powerful interests can
get politicians to do their bidding. At least Kilberg remains very professional, courteous in
our dealings.
> I am speaking with Chuck Cohen and Susan Davis; will be curious about their observations.
> I tip my hat to you for remaining calm and steadfast in the face of all this...pretty
impressive.
> Cheers,
> Rich
>
> On May 4, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Solomon, Lafe E. wrote:
>
>> Rich, before I forget, I wanted you to know that

Exemption 5
Even I
>> underestimated the vitriol that the complaint generated but hopefully
>> your attys are able to withstand the attacks to come. Hope the
>> conference goes well. Lafe
>> --------------------------
>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From:
>> To: Solomon, Lafe E.
>> Sent: Wed May 04 19:35:14 2011
>> Subject: seattletimes.com: Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787
>> case
NLRB-FOIA-00011020
>>
>> This message was sent to you by
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>>
>> Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case
>>
>> In a forceful letter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), top Boeing lawyer
Michael Luttig rejected the labor agency's complaint against the company's opening of a South
Carolina 787 plant, writing that its charges "fundamentally misquote or mischaracterize
statements by Boeing executives."
>>
>>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014961873_b
>> oeing05.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.
>>
>> =====================================================================
>> =
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
NLRB-FOIA-00011021
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Monday, May 16, 2011 11:50 AM
Solomon, Lafe E.
FW : my urgent question
I forwarded this to you on Saturday, but it looks like it bounced back. In case you didn't
see it. This reporter found notes from a conversation with Albaugh talking about building 15
dreamliners a month.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From: SUSANNA RAY, BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM: [mailto:sray7@bloomberg.net]
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 8:36 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: my urgent question
Hi Nancy, I found my notes from February, and Boeing Commercial Airplanes President Jim
Albaugh did indeed say that they could in theory eventually take 787 production up to 15
planes a month, with the main Everett line, the Charleston line and the temporary "surge
line" that they're building in the old 767 bay in Everett. Boeing has never said how many
planes a month it plans to build on the surge line, which is intended to be ready for use
next year and then to be phased out once Charleston gets up to three a month (goal is the end
of 2013). But they have built more than three 767s a month in that space in the past (in
1998, for example, they delivered 47 767s, followed by 44 each year in 1999 and 2000, and
sort of trickling down from there to about one a month now).
So here's my urgent question, as I'm writing this story: my understanding from you is that
the NLRB's remedy in this complaint is for Boeing to build 10 a month in Washington state by
IAM members. And that Boeing could fulfill this remedy by, for example, keeping open the
surge line. And then it can still continue with its South Carolina plans as it so desires, as
long as it's building 10 a month in Washington. I.e., it's a very narrow complaint and remedy
that only applies to what was said about the reason for this specific 787 assembly line being
built, and so as long as Boeing gives a different reason for putting other work in South
Carolina, it's free to do so.
*Is this correct?* Because it's a key point in the whole hoopla over the complaint, and I
want to be 100 percent sure before I put it out there.
Can you possibly check with Mr. Solomon -- or if you already know the answer yourself -- and
get back to me on this?
I was supposed to turn this story in tonight, for editing over the weekend or Monday, but I'd
rather be late and right than on-time and wrong, so I'll wait until I hear back from you. My
mobile number is 312-607-0747. Thank you!
Kind regards,
Susanna Ray
------------------------------------------------------------
Susanna Ray | U.S. aerospace reporter | Bloomberg News
O: +1-206-913-4541 | M: +1-312-607-0747 | E: sray7@bloomberg.net
NLRB-FOIA-00011022
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Monday, May 16, 2011 11:57 AM
Cleeland, Nancy
RE: my urgent question
Exemption 5
Are you or I supposed to respond?
Subject: FW: my urgent question
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
NLRB-FOIA-00011023
Kind regards,
Susanna Ray
------------------------------------------------------------
NLRB-FOIA-00011024
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Monday, May 16, 2011 11:59 AM
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: my urgent question
No - just wanted you to be aware. I hope her editors let her run with this. It's supposed to
come out today.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: RE: my urgent question
Exemption 5
Are you or I supposed to respond?
Subject: FW: my urgent question
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
To: Cleeland, Nancy
NLRB-FOIA-00011025
Kind regards,
Susanna Ray
------------------------------------------------------------
NLRB-FOIA-00011026
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.
more info on npr
Hi Lafe,
I spoke with Kathy Lohr, one of the NPR reporters, and realized I was mistaken about something. She is doing a separate
story on the South Carolina scene, while the other reporter will write about the hearing in Seattle later. Kathy Lohr has
talked to many people in SC who are angry at the NLRB and says our action was out of line, and shed like to balance it
out with something from us. Unfortunately she is wrapping up her piece tomorrow and would need to speak with you
tomorrow morning. It would be 10-15 minutes at 9 am at their studio on Massachusetts Ave NW. I could meet you there (I
really will be there).
What would work for the story is something along these lines:
Exemption 5
Please let me know what you think.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00011027
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Solomon, Lafe E.
FW : Contract Needs
SOW Legal Services Boeing 061011.doc; CCR Registration Instructions.doc
fyi
From: Graham, David
To: 'lkiernan@zuckerman.com'
Cc: James, Kathleen; Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; St. Clair, Delfina
Subject: Contract Needs
Leslie,
Per our conversation today, the following are items we discussed and/or need to address in order to prepare the contract
for signature:
Tax ID number;
CCR Registration Contractors are required to be registered in the Central Contractor Register in order to work
for the Federal Government. Attached are instructions on how to do that. You only have to register one time, and
would need a DUNS number (Dunn & Bradstreet) which the attachment describes. Let me or Delfina know if you
have questions about this;
The Federal Government pays interest on all debts over 30 days from receiving a proper invoice at the published
Treasury rate. That rate is 2.625% per annum until June 30, 2011, and new rates will be published in the Federal
Register beyond that period. Also, the Government has an automated payment system, so you wont likely see
anything over 60 days late as your engagement addresses. The Government usually pays on time now, and is
required to pay interest if it does not. If there are any issues with payment or any other claims, the Disputes Act in
the contract protects contractors with rights and procedures for resolving disputes or issues;
The Federal Government also publishes mileage rates, the same as IRS mileage which I believe is $.51 per mile,
so that should not be an issue;
The Federal Government does not award open ended contracts, so we need specific rates for specific positions
and the estimated number of hours for each so we can come up with an estimated contract amount. This is in
lieu of attorneys range from $250 to $900 per hour, and the same for paralegals;
I will have to place a not-to-exceed amount in the contract. This is only to protect the Government from
contractors who take advantage of an open checkbook as you probably can understand. That amount, just like
The Federal Government may terminate a contract at any time with the Termination clauses in the contract, so
Delfina St. Clair will be the Contracting Officer. I have to stay out of that role so I can authorize matters that have
the estimate, can be changed by the Contracting Officer as determined necessary;
that is in place already;
to go above the Contracting Officer. She will do a good job. You are welcome to contact her at any time as well.
Her number is 202-273-4212 and email is delfina.st.clair@nlrb.gov
Attached is the Statement of Work for your advance review, which will be part of the contract that describes the services
under contract. I believe we have covered everything in your engagement letter, so we would like to use the contract in
lieu of the letter if thats OK. Once we get all of these issues behind us we should be able to get a contract to you for
signature. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
David
David L. Graham, Chief
Acquisitions Management Branch
NLRB-FOIA-00011028
202-273-4047
NLRB-FOIA-00011029
NOTICE:
Contractors who have not registered with Central Contractor
Registration (CCR) should do so as soon as possible. Contractors bidding on
the new BPA must have a DUNS number and be registered with CCR to be
considered.
To obtain a Dun & Bradstreet (DUNS) number:
Call Duns and Bradstreet at 1-866-705-5711, and ask to be assigned a DUNS
number (the process takes about 5 minutes).
After receiving a DUNS number, you must wait 24 hours before registering
with CCR.
To register with the CCR
Log on to the CCR website (http://www.ccr.gov) and click on Start New
Registration located on the upper left hand side of the homepage. From there,
follow the prompts and fill in the information requested. The information that
will be requested in the required fields has been summarized on the attached
sheet.
NLRB-FOIA-00011030
Required information for CCR Registration
REQUIRED FIELDS are marked with an *. Unmarked fields are optional.
Legal Business Name: This is your name (unless you have a business)
Physical Street Address: Your home address (unless you have a business address)
Business Start Date: When you began (or expect to begin) the service you are
providing for the School of Language Studies (SLS).
Number of Employees: If only you, enter 1
Fiscal Year End: You may enter 12/31, for December 31, unless you have a
company that has a separate fiscal year
Annual Revenue: What you earn or expect to earn from this type of work (can be
an estimate)
Type of Organization: for most of you that will be Sole Proprietorship and your
name will be the Sole Proprietor.
Business Type: As an individual, you are a small business. Of course if you fit
one of the other categories, you may select that category.
Goods/Services: The sample page provided lists codes that refer to training.
For North American Industry Classification System the code related to
training (611630)
For Standard Industrial Classification, the training code is 8299.
Electronic Funds Transfer: This is your banking information
Automated Clearing House: At least one method of contact must be entered for
your financial institution.
ACH US Phone Number
ACH Non-US Phone Number THIS MAY BE LEFT BLANK
ACH FAX
ACH E-mail ________________________________
Remittance Information
This is your mailing address
Accounts Receivable Point of contact
This is your information.
NLRB-FOIA-00011031
STATEMENT OF WORK
LEGAL SERVICES
BACKGROUND
PURPOSE
legal services.
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00011032
COMMUNICATIONS:
EXPENSES:
and approval.
award.
POINTS OF CONTACT
1099 14
th
3704.
th

number is 202-273-4210.
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00011033
11/21/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00011034
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.
FW : NPR story on Boeing case
Apparently you made it into the 2
nd
NPR piece, although I havent had a chance to listen yet.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From:
Exemption 6
To: Wagner, Anthony R.; Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: NPR story on Boeing case
You might want to put on Surfboard a link to NPRs story about the Boeing case. Its a pretty
good account of the issue, and Lafe is one of the people quoted. You can hear him speak on the
audio version. The story is at :
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/14/137141619/labor-agency-challenges-boeing-factory-location
NLRB-FOIA-00011035
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Cleeland, Nancy
RE: NPR story on Boeing case
I heard it. I thought it was a good sound bite from my interview.
Subject: FW: NPR story on Boeing case
Apparently you made it into the 2
nd
NPR piece, although I havent had a chance to listen yet.
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
From:
Exemption 6
To: Wagner, Anthony R.; Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: NPR story on Boeing case
You might want to put on Surfboard a link to NPRs story about the Boeing case. Its a pretty
good account of the issue, and Lafe is one of the people quoted. You can hear him speak on the
audio version. The story is at :
http://www.npr.org/2011/06/14/137141619/labor-agency-challenges-boeing-factory-location
NLRB-FOIA-00011036
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kearney, Barry J.
W ednesday, September 01, 2010 11:12 AM
Sophir, Jayme
I got a call from Ahearn telling me this a big deal case and to put our best and our brightest on it. In looking at the memo
Boeing decision to have the work done outside of W ashington got a lot of press when it was announced. This is a GC
case. Thanks
Barry
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
NLRB-FOIA-00011037
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011038
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011039
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011040
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011041
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011042
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011043
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011044
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011045
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011046
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011047
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011048
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011049
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011050
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011051
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011052
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011053
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011054
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011055
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011056
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011057
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011058
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011059
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011060
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011061
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011062
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011063
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011064
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011065
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011066
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011067
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011068
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011069
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011070
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011071
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011072
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011073
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011074
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011075
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011076
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011077
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011078
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011079
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011080
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011081
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011082
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011083
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011084
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011085
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011086
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011087
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011088
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011089
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011090
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011091
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011092
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011093
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011094
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011095
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011096
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011097
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011098
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011099
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011100
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011101
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011102
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011103
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011104
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011105
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011106
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011107
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011108
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011109
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011110
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011111
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
W ednesday, September 01, 2010 11:31 AM
Karsh, Aaron
Nonresponsive
From: Karsh, Aaron
To: Sophir, Jayme
I have not read it yet (just got back from a Hiring Plan mtg). Only concern would be whether she could do this and get a
brief as well, even considering the elongated timeframe for filing. The submission itself is 72 pages. When would she need
to start on the brief, if Advice is doing it?
From: Sophir, Jayme
To: Karsh, Aaron
Good case for Deb?
To: Sophir, Jayme
case. Thanks
Barry
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011112
Recipient
Delivery
Karsh, Aaron
Delivered: 9/1/2010 11:31 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00011113
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
Karsh, Aaron
I was thinking youd do it. I have a meeting starting at 2:15. You can call her and offer her Boeing and a couple of the
other (preferably older) things. But try to impress on her that Boeing is the exciting, interesting, high profile one, and Im
sure shell choose that.
From: Karsh, Aaron
To: Sophir, Jayme
Have you called her? Let me know when you'd like to talk --
From: Sophir, Jayme
To: Karsh, Aaron
Good case for Deb?
To: Sophir, Jayme
case. Thanks
Barry
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011114
Recipient
Delivery
Karsh, Aaron
Delivered: 9/1/2010 1:48 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00011115
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: in late
Ok, see you then.
To: Sophir, Jayme
Subject: in late
and luckily have Boeing with me because that was my first order of business for today. I
expect to be in a little later this am.
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011116
Recipient
Delivery
Szapiro, Miriam
Delivered: 10/4/2010 8:39 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00011117
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
Boeing
I just mentioned this case to Barry, and he said if you have something for him to read today, hell be able to have an
agenda tomorrow. Or you can wait if youre not ready. I just wanted to let you know that hell make room to do it if you
want to move forward. I think hell be able to read your draft more easily than reading the Regions submission (although
obviously hell want to read the submission at some point). I explained that the draft is for purposes of a GC agenda and
might not be as polished as an advice memo ordinarily would be.
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011118
Recipient
Delivery
Szapiro, Miriam
Delivered: 10/4/2010 9:31 AM
Willen, Debra L
Delivered: 10/4/2010 9:31 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00011119
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
Szapiro, Miriam
boeing
Dont promise Deb a Thursday agenda yet. If it turns out that Wed works better for Barry, shes just going to have to give
up her telework day. I dont think we should be deciding when to do agendas (especially in big cases like this) by
planning around t/w days
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011120
Recipient
Delivery
Szapiro, Miriam
Delivered: 10/4/2010 11:13 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00011121
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
RE: "Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American W orkers and Managers"
Why don't you just ask our librarian whether he can order a copy for us.
To: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: "Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American Workers and Managers"
Is there any chance we can get Advice to pay for this book? Deb is about to order it, and I
think it could provide very helpful information regarding the case.
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011122
Recipient
Delivery
Szapiro, Miriam
Delivered: 11/22/2010 11:40 AM
Willen, Debra L
Delivered: 11/22/2010 11:40 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00011123
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
W ednesday, December 01, 2010 4:40 PM
W illen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
boeing
Boeing now wants to postpone our meeting another day (12/15), and when I expressed dismay, Barry said its just one
day. If you remember or have the info easily available, can you give me a brief timeline of when we/Lafe originally said
Boeing would have to come in by (wasnt it like months ago?), and each of the postponements and the reasons they gave
why they needed more time? This is what we always said would happen they would delay and delay litigation (in small
increments so it never seems like much delay in and of itself) while events on the ground proceeded apace...
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011124
Recipient
Delivery
Willen, Debra L
Delivered: 12/1/2010 4:40 PM
Szapiro, Miriam
Delivered: 12/1/2010 4:40 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00011125
Microsoft Outlook
Nonresponsive
13th
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011126
Recipient
Delivery
Farrell, Ellen
Delivered: 12/2/2010 9:11 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00011127
Microsoft Outlook
Nonresponsive
13th
NLRB-FOIA-00011128
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sophir, Jayme
Sent:
Monday, December 13, 2010 10:59 AM
To:
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject:
Boeing
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Delivery
Kearney, Barry J.
Delivered: 12/13/2010 10:59 AM
Farrell, Ellen
Delivered: 12/13/2010 10:59 AM
FYI Deb tells me that the Union is preparing another paper, which they hope to have to us before the Wednesday
meeting, that will include an inherently destructive argument and a summary of the bargaining.
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00011129
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Solomon, Lafe E.
Mattina, Celeste J.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Katz, Judy; Szapiro,
Miriam; Omberg, Bob; Baniszewski, Joseph
Boeing Co. - fact sheet and memo
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Deb Willen
NLRB-FOIA-00011130
NLRB-FOIA-00011131
NLRB-FOIA-00011132
NLRB-FOIA-00011133
NLRB-FOIA-00011134
NLRB-FOIA-00011135
NLRB-FOIA-00011136
NLRB-FOIA-00011137
NLRB-FOIA-00011138
NLRB-FOIA-00011139
NLRB-FOIA-00011140
NLRB-FOIA-00011141
NLRB-FOIA-00011142
NLRB-FOIA-00011143
NLRB-FOIA-00011144
NLRB-FOIA-00011145
NLRB-FOIA-00011146
NLRB-FOIA-00011147
NLRB-FOIA-00011148
NLRB-FOIA-00011149
NLRB-FOIA-00011150
NLRB-FOIA-00011151
NLRB-FOIA-00011152
NLRB-FOIA-00011153
NLRB-FOIA-00011154
NLRB-FOIA-00011155
NLRB-FOIA-00011156
NLRB-FOIA-00011157
NLRB-FOIA-00011158
NLRB-FOIA-00011159
NLRB-FOIA-00011160
NLRB-FOIA-00011161
NLRB-FOIA-00011162
NLRB-FOIA-00011163
NLRB-FOIA-00011164
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011165
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011166
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011167
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
To:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Cc:
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
FW: Boeing
Subject:
billion.
South Carolina."
NLRB-FOIA-00011168
Thanks, Dave
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
NLRB-FOIA-00011169
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FW: Boeing call
fyi
To: 'Corson Christopher'
Chris
Barry,
all along.
NLRB-FOIA-00011170
more time.
Sent from my iPad
Christopher Corson
General Counsel
301-967-4510 (office)
301-967-4594 (fax)
202-368-6484 (cell)
_____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00011171
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sophir, Jayme
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
draft press release in Boeing
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011172
Recipient
Delivery
Kearney, Barry J.
Delivered: 4/13/2011 12:17 PM
Farrell, Ellen
Delivered: 4/13/2011 12:17 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00011173
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00011174
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00011175
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen;
Sophir, Jayme
Boeing draft press release
Looks good; my few suggestions are in italics.
Rich
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 10:55 AM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW: draft press release in Boeing
Ex. 5 Deliberative
From: Sophir, Jayme
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00011176
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011177
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011178
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 : Boeing Draft for submission to Advice
Importance:
High
From:
Sent:
To:
Greetings all, Please review my latest revision, which attempts to incorporate comments from Celeste, Jennifer and
Barry. Please see suggested revisions
Exemption 5
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00011179
Ex. 5 - Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00011180
NLRB-FOIA-00011181
NLRB-FOIA-00011182
NLRB-FOIA-00011183
NLRB-FOIA-00011184
NLRB-FOIA-00011185
NLRB-FOIA-00011186
NLRB-FOIA-00011187
NLRB-FOIA-00011188
NLRB-FOIA-00011189
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
FW : Boeing - any thoughts on a response?
fyi
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00011190
Microsoft Outlook
Kearney, Barry J.
Sophir, Jayme
Fw: Boeing - time to decide
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
--------------------------
Sent: Thu Apr 28 18:07:13 2011
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
I would go with
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent: Thu Apr 28 17:59:18 2011
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011191
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00011192
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:58 AM
To:
Cc:
Dodds, Amy L.
Subject:
Boeing -- revised draft response to state AGs
Attachments:
GC Response to State AGs.doc; AGs letter.pdf
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00011193
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Solomon:
tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00011194
April 27, 2011
Page 2
back to work.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
NLRB-FOIA-00011195
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00011196
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011197
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011198
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011199
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sophir, Jayme
W illen, Debra L
I think youre right. This is the last thing I have in my efiles. Lafe must have decided not to respond after all.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00011200
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011201
Recipient
Delivery
Willen, Debra L
Delivered: 6/7/2011 4:33 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00011202
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011203
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011204
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011205
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Solomon:
tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00011206
April 27, 2011
Page 2
back to work.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
NLRB-FOIA-00011207
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00011208
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Karsh, Aaron
RE: Boeing Co., 19-CA-32431
sure
From: Karsh, Aaron
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2010 9:18 AM
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: Boeing Co., 19-CA-32431
Could you also check up within a day to see that the case has closed? Thanks.
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
Subject: RE: Boeing Co.
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?
To: Szapiro, Miriam; Karsh, Aaron; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: Boeing Co.
Its on deferral.
NLRB-FOIA-00011209
To: Karsh, Aaron; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: 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:
NLRB-FOIA-00011210
Recipient
Read
Karsh, Aaron
Read: 6/2/2010 9:19 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00011211
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Karsh, Aaron
Sophir, Jayme
Here's your new case --
Aaron
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
NLRB-FOIA-00011212
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011213
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011214
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011215
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011216
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011217
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011218
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011219
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011220
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011221
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011222
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011223
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011224
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011225
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011226
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011227
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011228
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011229
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011230
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011231
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011232
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011233
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011234
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011235
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011236
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011237
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011238
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011239
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011240
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011241
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011242
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011243
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011244
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011245
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011246
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011247
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011248
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011249
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011250
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011251
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011252
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011253
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011254
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011255
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011256
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011257
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011258
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011259
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011260
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011261
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011262
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011263
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011264
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011265
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011266
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011267
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011268
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011269
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011270
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011271
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011272
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011273
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011274
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011275
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011276
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011277
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011278
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011279
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011280
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011281
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011282
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011283
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011284
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011285
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011286
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Karsh, Aaron
Submission in Word --
Cc: Albertsen, Mary
Aaron,
Anne
To: Pomerantz, Anne
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
From: Advice
To: Albertsen, Mary
many there are?
Thanks -
Aaron Karsh
DAGC, Advice
NLRB-FOIA-00011287
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
NLRB-FOIA-00011288
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011289
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011290
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011291
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011292
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011293
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011294
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011295
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011296
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011297
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011298
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011299
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011300
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011301
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011302
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011303
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011304
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011305
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011306
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011307
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011308
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011309
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011310
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011311
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011312
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011313
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011314
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011315
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011316
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011317
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011318
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011319
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011320
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011321
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011322
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011323
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011324
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011325
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011326
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011327
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011328
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011329
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011330
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011331
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011332
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011333
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011334
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011335
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011336
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011337
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011338
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011339
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011340
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011341
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011342
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011343
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011344
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011345
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011346
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011347
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011348
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011349
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011350
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011351
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011352
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011353
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011354
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011355
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011356
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011357
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011358
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011359
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011360
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Pomerantz, Anne
Karsh, Aaron
Will do. Thanks.
From: Karsh, Aaron
To: Pomerantz, Anne
Cc: Lundgren, Cynthia A; Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Aaron
Aaron,
Anne
Cc: Albertsen, Mary
Aaron,
Anne
NLRB-FOIA-00011361
To: Pomerantz, Anne
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
From: Advice
To: Albertsen, Mary
many there are?
Thanks -
Aaron Karsh
DAGC, Advice
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
NLRB-FOIA-00011362
Microsoft Outlook
W illen, Debra L
Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:10 AM
Sophir, Jayme
Szapiro, Miriam
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jayme
Heres the Request for Advice in Boeing. I recommend that you

Exemption 5
. Thanks, Deb
From: Karsh, Aaron
Cc: Sophir, Jayme
Here's your new case --
Aaron
Mary Albertsen, AOM
(206) 220-6318
NLRB-FOIA-00011363
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011364
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011365
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011366
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011367
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011368
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011369
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011370
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011371
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011372
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011373
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011374
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011375
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011376
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011377
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011378
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011379
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011380
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011381
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011382
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011383
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011384
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011385
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011386
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011387
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011388
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011389
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011390
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011391
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011392
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011393
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011394
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011395
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011396
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011397
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011398
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011399
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011400
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011401
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011402
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011403
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011404
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011405
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011406
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011407
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011408
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011409
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011410
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011411
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011412
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011413
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011414
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011415
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011416
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011417
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011418
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011419
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011420
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011421
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011422
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011423
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011424
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011425
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011426
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011427
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011428
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011429
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011430
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011431
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011432
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011433
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011434
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011435
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011436
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011437
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sophir, Jayme
in late
E.6 Privacy
and luckily have Boeing with me because that was my first order of business for today. I
expect to be in a little later this am.
NLRB-FOIA-00011438
Microsoft Outlook
Szapiro, Miriam
Sophir, Jayme
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Well,
Exemption 6
, so it may have to wait..
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
From: Sophir, Jayme
To: Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Subject: Boeing
I just mentioned this case to Barry, and he said if you have something for him to read today, hell be able to have an
agenda tomorrow. Or you can wait if youre not ready. I just wanted to let you know that hell make room to do it if you
want to move forward. I think hell be able to read your draft more easily than reading the Regions submission (although
obviously hell want to read the submission at some point). I explained that the draft is for purposes of a GC agenda and
might not be as polished as an advice memo ordinarily would be.
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011439
Recipient
Read
Sophir, Jayme
Deleted: 10/28/2010 9:02 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00011440
Microsoft Outlook
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
RE: Ex. 6 personal privacy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
but if you get this email at some point
today, could you let me know if you're comfortable doing an agenda in Boeing w/ Barry some
time tomorrow? I'd give him a draft of your memo today for him to look at, along w/ the
submission.
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
To: Person, Robyn; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Ex. 6 personal privacy
NLRB-FOIA-00011441
Microsoft Outlook
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
If you feel like it'll be too much pressure, we can just hold off.
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE:
Yes -- that's fine.
________________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE:

submission.
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
Subject:
NLRB-FOIA-00011442
Microsoft Outlook
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
No, not at all.
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE:
No let's go ahead and schedule it.
Are there any significant problems with the draft?
________________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE:
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE:
Yes -- that's fine.
________________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE:
submission.
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00011443
Subject:
NLRB-FOIA-00011444
Microsoft Outlook
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
RE Ex. 6 personal privacy
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Well, after all that, Jayme now thinks we should just wait; she initially suggested Tuesday
because she thought Barry would want to move it quickly. But now it seems that having just
returned, he's got a ton of stuff on his desk and might have difficulty being ready for an
agenda tomorrow anyway. Sorry for all the confusion.
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE:
No let's go ahead and schedule it.
Are there any significant problems with the draft?
________________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE:
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE:
Yes -- that's fine.
________________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE:
submission.
Miriam Szapiro
NLRB-FOIA-00011445
202-273-0998
Subject:
NLRB-FOIA-00011446
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sophir, Jayme
RE: boeing
Thats fine; I didnt promise her anything, just told her tomorrow was off.
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
From: Sophir, Jayme
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: boeing
Dont promise Deb a Thursday agenda yet. If it turns out that Wed works better for Barry, shes just going to have to give
up her telework day. I dont think we should be deciding when to do agendas (especially in big cases like this) by
planning around t/w days
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011447
Recipient
Read
Sophir, Jayme
Deleted: 10/28/2010 9:02 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00011448
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
Tuesday, October 12, 2010 4:24 PM
To:
Szapiro, Miriam
Attachments:
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Szapiro, Miriam
Read: 10/12/2010 4:33 PM
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00011449
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011450
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011451
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011452
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011453
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011454
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011455
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011456
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011457
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011458
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011459
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011460
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011461
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011462
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011463
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011464
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011465
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011466
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011467
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011468
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011469
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011470
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011471
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011472
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011473
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011474
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011475
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011476
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011477
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011478
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011479
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011480
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011481
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011482
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011483
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011484
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011485
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011486
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011487
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011488
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011489
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011490
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011491
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011492
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011493
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011494
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011495
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
W ednesday, October 13, 2010 8:08 AM
Boeing
If so what do we
Arguably Ex. 4
know about that?
NLRB-FOIA-00011496
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Kearney, Barry J.; Szapiro, Miriam
RE: Boeing
I don't have copies of the contracts.
What I know is that at some point,
Arguably Ex. 4
________________________________________
Subject: Boeing
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00011497
Microsoft Outlook
Kearney, Barry J.
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Subject: RE: Boeing
Arguably Ex. 4
________________________________________
Subject: Boeing
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00011498
Microsoft Outlook
W illen, Debra L
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
and parts.
________________________________________
Subject: RE: Boeing
Subject: RE: Boeing
Arguably Ex. 4
________________________________________
Subject: Boeing
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00011499
Microsoft Outlook
Kearney, Barry J.
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
We say in memo that there were two stikes in the last 5 years. Do we know the strike history?
Subject: RE: Boeing
and parts.
________________________________________
Subject: RE: Boeing
Subject: RE: Boeing
Arguably Ex. 4
________________________________________
Subject: Boeing
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00011500
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
RE: Boeing
See footnote 1 --
1989: 48 days
1995: 69 days
2005: 28 days
2008: 57 days
There were strikes before 1989, that I didn't put in the footnote.
if you give me another minute, I can send you those.
________________________________________
Subject: RE: Boeing
Subject: RE: Boeing
and parts.
________________________________________
Subject: RE: Boeing
Subject: RE: Boeing
Arguably Ex. 4
________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00011501
Subject: Boeing
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00011502
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
RE: Boeing
Earlier strikes:
1948 for 140 days, in 1965 for 19 days, in 1977 for 45 days ________________________________________
Subject: RE: Boeing
Subject: RE: Boeing
No -- there are 18,000 employees in this unit and they work on several different airplanes and parts.
________________________________________
Subject: RE: Boeing
Subject: RE: Boeing
I don't have copies of the contracts. What I know is that at some point,
Exemption 5
________________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00011503
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 5
If so what do
we know about that?
NLRB-FOIA-00011504
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam
Boeing
Hi Miriam -- I'm going to try to turn around Boeing this afternoon.
I know you
Exemption 6
and are leaving early.
Please remind me when you will
be gone.
thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00011505
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
RE: Boeing
Hi Deb, I'll be leaving about 2:45. Do you need to talk before then?
________________________________________
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing
I know you
Exemption 6
and are leaving early.
be gone.
thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00011506
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: Boeing
Uh oh, I just got this.
Have been busy making Barry's changes.
I'm going to finish in the next hour.
Do you want to see it first or should I send it back
to eveyone at once?
________________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: Boeing
Hi Deb, I'll be leaving about 2:45. Do you need to talk before then?
________________________________________
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing
I know you
Exemption 6
be gone.
thanks, Deb
E...
NLRB-FOIA-00011507
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Mattina, Celeste
Cc:
Subject:
The Boeing Company, Case 19-CA32431, GC Agenda
Attachments:
The above-referenced Advice case is scheduled for a GC Agenda on Monday, October 18, at 2:00 p.m.
At Barry Kearneys request, I am forwarding you a copy of our memo to the General Counsel in this case.
Looking forward to seeing you on Monday
Debra Willen
NLRB-FOIA-00011508
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011509
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011510
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011511
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011512
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011513
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011514
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011515
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011516
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011517
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011518
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011519
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011520
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011521
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011522
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011523
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011524
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011525
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011526
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011527
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011528
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011529
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011530
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011531
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011532
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011533
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
Tuesday, October 19, 2010 8:03 AM
To:
Sophir, Jayme; Willen, Debra L
Subject:
RE: Boeing
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Sophir, Jayme
Read: 10/19/2010 8:25 AM
Willen, Debra L
Read: 10/19/2010 9:08 AM
Yes, we figured we would need to meet first thing, do decide what needed to be done. Have you already spoken with
Barry and Ellen, ie, do you know what they want to do, or are we doing this first?
From: Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 5:22 PM
Subject: Boeing
Can you guys come see me first thing tomorrow morning about changes to the memo, etc.? (my first thing might be
later than your first thing but you know what I mean).
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00011534
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:46 AM
FW : Link to SC Boeing articles
From: Ferguson, John H.
Subject: Link to SC Boeing articles
NLRB-FOIA-00011535
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
W ednesday, November 10, 2010 8:58 AM
Boeing Company, 19-CA-32431
I thought Id bring to your attention pp. 13-21 of the Regions Request for Advice (attached), which describes
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011536
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011537
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011538
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011539
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011540
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011541
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011542
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011543
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011544
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011545
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011546
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011547
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011548
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011549
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011550
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011551
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011552
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011553
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011554
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011555
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011556
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011557
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011558
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011559
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011560
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011561
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011562
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011563
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011564
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011565
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011566
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011567
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011568
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011569
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011570
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011571
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011572
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011573
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011574
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011575
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011576
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011577
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011578
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011579
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011580
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011581
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011582
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011583
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011584
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011585
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011586
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011587
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011588
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011589
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011590
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011591
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011592
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011593
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011594
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011595
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011596
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011597
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011598
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011599
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011600
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011601
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011602
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011603
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011604
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011605
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011606
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011607
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011608
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011609
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011610
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Boeing Co.
DOC001.PDF
NLRB-FOIA-00011611
NLRB-FOIA-00011612
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00011613
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Friday, November 12, 2010 8:23 AM
Boeing
FYI the cite to Brown is 380 U.S. 278.
I have a message from Carson Glickman-Flora, IAM Counsel, who said that she will call back today.
She was aware that Boeing counsel were meeting with us and will want a report.
Id like some guidance I can be as vague or specific as you like.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00011614
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Omberg, Bob
Boeing Co.
NLRB-FOIA-00011615
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
Sunday, November 21, 2010 8:18 PM
To:
Willen, Debra L; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject:
NLRB-FOIA-00011616
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Szapiro, Miriam
Subject:
RE: "Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American Workers and Managers"
Very interesting ...
NLRB-FOIA-00011617
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
To:
Sophir, Jayme
Cc:
Willen, Debra L
Subject:
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Sophir, Jayme
Read: 11/22/2010 11:39 AM
Willen, Debra L
Read: 11/22/2010 10:01 AM
Is there any chance we can get Advice to pay for this book? Deb is about to order it, and I think it could provide very
helpful information regarding the case.
NLRB-FOIA-00011618
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sophir, Jayme
W illen, Debra L
RE: "Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American W orkers and Managers"
Okay, I'll try that.
From: Sophir, Jayme
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Cc: Willen, Debra L
Why don't you just ask our librarian whether he can order a copy for us.
To: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Willen, Debra L
Is there any chance we can get Advice to pay for this book? Deb is about to order it, and I
think it could provide very helpful information regarding the case.
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011619
Recipient
Read
Sophir, Jayme
Deleted: 12/7/2010 1:53 PM
Willen, Debra L
Deleted: 11/30/2010 10:36 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00011620
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
To:
Martin, Andrew
Subject:
book order request
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Martin, Andrew
Read: 11/22/2010 11:59 AM
order it for us?
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00011621
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
To:
Sophir, Jayme
Cc:
Willen, Debra L
Subject:
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Sophir, Jayme
Deleted: 12/7/2010 1:53 PM
Willen, Debra L
Deleted: 11/30/2010 10:36 AM
I emailed him a request, so we'll see what he says.
NLRB-FOIA-00011622
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Martin, Andrew
Szapiro, Miriam
To: Martin, Andrew
order it for us?
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00011623
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Martin, Andrew
Thanks! Just let me know.
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
From: Martin, Andrew
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 12:00 PM
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: book order request
To: Martin, Andrew
order it for us?
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011624
Recipient
Read
Martin, Andrew
Read: 11/22/2010 12:11 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00011625
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sophir, Jayme; W illen, Debra L
FW : book order request
To: Szapiro, Miriam
To: Martin, Andrew
order it for us?
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011626
Recipient
Read
Sophir, Jayme
Deleted: 12/7/2010 1:53 PM
Willen, Debra L
Read: 11/22/2010 12:33 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00011627
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Martin, Andrew
Szapiro, Miriam
Weve gotten it approved. Itll be here as soon as Amazon makes it available
To: Martin, Andrew
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
To: Szapiro, Miriam
To: Martin, Andrew
order it for us?
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00011628
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Martin, Andrew
Great! Thanks much.
Miriam
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
To: Szapiro, Miriam
To: Martin, Andrew
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
To: Szapiro, Miriam
To: Martin, Andrew
order it for us?
NLRB-FOIA-00011629
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011630
Recipient
Read
Martin, Andrew
Read: 11/22/2010 1:49 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00011631
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L; Sophir, Jayme
FW : book order request
yay
To: Szapiro, Miriam
To: Martin, Andrew
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
To: Szapiro, Miriam
To: Martin, Andrew
order it for us?
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
NLRB-FOIA-00011632
202-273-0998
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011633
Recipient
Read
Willen, Debra L
Read: 11/22/2010 2:25 PM
Sophir, Jayme
Deleted: 12/7/2010 1:53 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00011634
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
To:
Karsh, Aaron
Subject:
FW: Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American Workers and Managers
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Karsh, Aaron
Read: 11/23/2010 11:44 AM
You've probably already read the review, but here is the link just in case -----Original Message----From: Szapiro, Miriam
NLRB-FOIA-00011635
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Karsh, Aaron
Sent:
To:
Szapiro, Miriam
Subject:
I did read it -- looked interesting.
To: Karsh, Aaron
Subject: FW: "Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American Workers and Managers"
You've probably already read the review, but here is the link just in case -----Original Message----From: Szapiro, Miriam
NLRB-FOIA-00011636
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Stewart, Audrey R.
RE: book order request - Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American W orkers
Great; is it too late to come down now?
From: Stewart, Audrey R.
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Cc: Nixon-Jackson, Thetis A.; Richardson, Ronald C.
Subject: FW: book order request - Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American Workers
Importance: High
Miriam,
Book has been received and processed. You can come down to the Library and check it out.
Audrey R. Stewart
Acquisitions Librarian
NLRB Library, Rm 8000
202-273-3725
To: Martin, Andrew
order it for us?
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011637
Recipient
Read
Stewart, Audrey R.
Read: 11/30/2010 4:31 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00011638
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Stewart, Audrey R.
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: book order request - Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American W orkers
Come on down.
To: Stewart, Audrey R.
Subject: RE: book order request - Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American Workers
Great; is it too late to come down now?
From: Stewart, Audrey R.
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Cc: Nixon-Jackson, Thetis A.; Richardson, Ronald C.
Subject: FW: book order request - Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American Workers
Importance: High
Miriam,
Book has been received and processed. You can come down to the Library and check it out.
Audrey R. Stewart
Acquisitions Librarian
NLRB Library, Rm 8000
202-273-3725
To: Martin, Andrew
order it for us?
Thanks,
Miriam Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
NLRB-FOIA-00011639
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00011640
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
Wednesday, December 01, 2010 11:43 PM
To:
Sophir, Jayme; Willen, Debra L
Subject:
RE: boeing
Yeah, by the time we get to a 10j, they will be up and running in S. Carolina.... and have a litigation team/pr strategy
well in place.
________________________________________
From: Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 4:39 PM
Subject: boeing
Boeing would have to come in by (wasnt it like months ago?), and each of the postponements and the reasons they
gave why they needed more time? This is what we always said would happen they would delay and delay litigation (in
small increments so it never seems like much delay in and of itself) while events on the ground proceeded apace...
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00011641
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
To:
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Subject:
I know I told you so
13th
NLRB-FOIA-00011642
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
RE: boeing
The GC Agenda was OCTOBER 18. The decision to invite them in was made the following day. I thought that originally
we were going to give them 2 weeks.
We are now going on two months. Im convinced that they are prepping witnesses and amassing documents to defend
against the 10(j).
From: Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 4:40 PM
Subject: boeing
Boeing would have to come in by (wasnt it like months ago?), and each of the postponements and the reasons they gave
why they needed more time? This is what we always said would happen they would delay and delay litigation (in small
increments so it never seems like much delay in and of itself) while events on the ground proceeded apace...
Jayme Sophir
202-273-3837
NLRB-FOIA-00011643
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 9:37 AM
To:
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Cc:
Szapiro, Miriam
Subject:
Boeing
If you have time, you might want to check out a new case cited by the Union Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co., 355
NLRB No.197 but I can brief you about it.
NLRB-FOIA-00011644
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
W ednesday, January 12, 2011 4:12 PM
Szapiro, Miriam
Boeing
I forgot to ask you -- since everyone now has Connor's declaration, do you think I should send around Exemption 6, 7(C...
Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D)
To: Willen, Debra L
Debra, Thx.
Rich
Ahearn, Richard L.
To: Willen, Debra L
Cc: David Campbell
Ms. W illen,
next week.
Sincerely,
NLRB-FOIA-00011645
Seattle, W A 98119
206-285-2828
NLRB-FOIA-00011646
Microsoft Outlook
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I think that's a good idea, so people can see it before the mtg.
________________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 4:11 PM
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing
I forgot to ask you -- since everyone now has Connor's declaration, do you think I should
send around Exemption 6, 7(C) and 7(D) affidavit?
Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D)
________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Debra,
Thx.
Rich
________________________________
To: Contee, Ernestine R.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam;
Katz, Judy; Omberg, Bob; Ahearn, Richard L.
________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Cc: David Campbell
Ms. Willen,
In response to your email to Dave Campbell, the following people will be attending the
meeting with AGC Lafe Solomon next week.
Richard P. Michalski, General Vice President, IAMAW Christopher Corson, General Counsel,
IAMAW Neil Gladstein, Director Strategic Resources, IAMAW Mark Blondin, IAM Aerospace
Coordinator Tom Wroblewski, President, IAM District Lodge 751 David Campbell, Attorney Carson
Glickman-Flora, Attorney Jude Bryan, Paralegal
Sincerely,
NLRB-FOIA-00011647
Seattle, WA 98119
206-285-2828
NLRB-FOIA-00011648
Microsoft Outlook
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Should I send it to all the people who got the Connor declaration -- including Lafe?
________________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: Boeing
________________________________________
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing
Ex. 6, 7(C), 7(D)
________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Debra,
Thx.
Rich
________________________________
________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Cc: David Campbell
Ms. Willen,
NLRB-FOIA-00011649
Sincerely,
Seattle, WA 98119
206-285-2828
NLRB-FOIA-00011650
Microsoft Outlook
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hmm, I think so. You could poke your head in to BJK and tell him what you're doing first, if
you want to (rather than ask him....) ________________________________________
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: Boeing
________________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: Boeing
________________________________________
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D)
.)
________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Debra,
Thx.
Rich
________________________________
________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
NLRB-FOIA-00011651
Cc: David Campbell
Ms. Willen,
Sincerely,
Seattle, WA 98119
206-285-2828
NLRB-FOIA-00011652
Microsoft Outlook
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sounds like a good idea -- I'll do it tomorrow.
________________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: Boeing
Hmm, I think so. You could poke your head in to BJK and tell him what you're doing first, if
you want to (rather than ask him....) ________________________________________
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: Boeing
________________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: Boeing
________________________________________
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing
send around
Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(...
affidavit?
Exemption 6, 7C), 7(D)
________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Debra,
Thx.
Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D)
Rich
________________________________
NLRB-FOIA-00011653
________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Cc: David Campbell
Ms. Willen,
Sincerely,
Seattle, WA 98119
206-285-2828
NLRB-FOIA-00011654
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
Friday, January 21, 2011 11:41 AM
To:
Szapiro, Miriam
Subject:
Boeing
Youre not going to believe the latest come down when you get a chance.
NLRB-FOIA-00011655
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Szapiro, Miriam
Subject:
Boeing draft
Attachments:
Attached. Enjoy your day at home!
NLRB-FOIA-00011656
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011657
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011658
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011659
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011660
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011661
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011662
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011663
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011664
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011665
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011666
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011667
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011668
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011669
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011670
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011671
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011672
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011673
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011674
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011675
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011676
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011677
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011678
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011679
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011680
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011681
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011682
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011683
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011684
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011685
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011686
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011687
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011688
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011689
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011690
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011691
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011692
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011693
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011694
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011695
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011696
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011697
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011698
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011699
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011700
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011701
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011702
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011703
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011704
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011705
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011706
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011707
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011708
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011709
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011710
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011711
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011712
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
To:
Willen, Debra L
Subject:
RE: Boeing draft
Thanks Id like to say enjoy your day at the office but it doesnt have the same ring to it.
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: Boeing draft
Attached. Enjoy your day at home!
NLRB-FOIA-00011713
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
Thursday, January 27, 2011 10:31 AM
To:
Szapiro, Miriam; Miriam - Szapiro
Attachments:
ADV 19-CA-32431 Response2 Boeing dlw.doc
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00011714
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011715
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011716
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011717
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011718
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011719
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011720
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011721
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011722
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011723
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011724
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011725
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011726
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011727
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011728
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011729
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011730
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011731
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011732
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011733
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011734
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011735
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011736
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011737
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011738
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011739
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011740
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011741
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011742
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011743
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011744
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011745
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011746
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011747
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011748
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011749
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011750
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011751
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011752
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011753
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011754
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011755
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011756
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011757
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011758
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011759
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011760
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011761
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011762
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011763
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011764
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011765
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011766
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011767
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011768
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011769
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011770
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011771
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011772
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
Thursday, January 27, 2011 10:31 AM
To:
Szapiro, Miriam; Miriam - Szapiro
Attachments:
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Szapiro, Miriam
Read: 1/27/2011 10:48 AM
Miriam - Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
NLRB-FOIA-00011773
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011774
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011775
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011776
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011777
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011778
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011779
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011780
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011781
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011782
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011783
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011784
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011785
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011786
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011787
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011788
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011789
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011790
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011791
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011792
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011793
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011794
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011795
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011796
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011797
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011798
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011799
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011800
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011801
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011802
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011803
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011804
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011805
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011806
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011807
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011808
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011809
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011810
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011811
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011812
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011813
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011814
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011815
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011816
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011817
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011818
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011819
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011820
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011821
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011822
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011823
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011824
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011825
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011826
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011827
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011828
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011829
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011830
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011831
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
boeing draft
This is good; I made some edits here and there, but mainly in the narrative in the beginning of the action section; I moved
the arguments around to try and make then more clearly defined. But please look critically at the suggested changes and
decide if you think it works better or not. Im around; I may walk down the block for lunch in about a hour. I also have a
couple questions, in comments, where I made a suggested change but wanted to make sure it was a fair way to put it.
Me
Ps
Non-Responsive
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011832
Recipient
Read
Willen, Debra L
Read: 1/27/2011 12:11 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00011833
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011834
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011835
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011836
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011837
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011838
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011839
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011840
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011841
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011842
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011843
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011844
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011845
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011846
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011847
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011848
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011849
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011850
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011851
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011852
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011853
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011854
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011855
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011856
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011857
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011858
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011859
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011860
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011861
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011862
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011863
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011864
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011865
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011866
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011867
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011868
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011869
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011870
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011871
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011872
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011873
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011874
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011875
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011876
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011877
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011878
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011879
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011880
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011881
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011882
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011883
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011884
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011885
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011886
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011887
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011888
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011889
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011890
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011891
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011892
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
I just skimmed through it again and realized
Exemption 5
If you think its worth it, add
something. If not, just get rid of the highlight.
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011893
Recipient
Read
Willen, Debra L
Read: 1/27/2011 12:16 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00011894
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam
RE:
Okay I was just about to look at it.
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject:
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011895
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
RE:
Cool, Ill take a look at it
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE:
Okay heres the new version.
I accepted 97% of your changes
Exemption 5
Ive responded to the comments where you were posing questions.
Exemption 5
Thanks.
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject:
Exemption 5
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00011896
Recipient
Read
Willen, Debra L
Read: 1/27/2011 1:26 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00011897
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
To:
Willen, Debra L
Subject:
draft
Attachments:
ADV 19-CA-32431 Response2 Boeing dlw2.doc
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Willen, Debra L
Read: 1/27/2011 2:32 PM
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-00011898
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011899
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011900
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011901
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011902
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011903
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011904
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011905
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011906
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011907
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011908
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011909
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011910
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011911
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011912
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011913
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011914
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011915
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011916
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011917
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011918
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011919
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011920
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011921
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011922
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011923
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011924
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011925
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011926
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011927
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011928
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011929
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011930
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011931
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011932
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011933
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011934
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011935
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011936
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011937
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011938
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011939
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011940
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011941
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011942
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011943
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011944
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011945
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011946
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011947
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011948
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011949
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011950
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011951
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011952
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011953
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011954
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011955
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011956
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam
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
NLRB-FOIA-00011957
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011958
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011959
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011960
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011961
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011962
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011963
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011964
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011965
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011966
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011967
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011968
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011969
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011970
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011971
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011972
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011973
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011974
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011975
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011976
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011977
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011978
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011979
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011980
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011981
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011982
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011983
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011984
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011985
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011986
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011987
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011988
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011989
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011990
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011991
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011992
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011993
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011994
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011995
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011996
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011997
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011998
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00011999
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012000
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012001
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012002
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012003
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012004
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012005
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012006
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012007
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012008
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012009
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012010
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012011
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012012
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012013
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012014
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012015
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Kearney, Barry J.
Cc:
Szapiro, Miriam
Subject:
Boeing Co.
Barry Im attaching the revised Boeing draft and also leaving a hard copy in your in-box.
Incidentally, I just talked to David Campbell and apparently Boeing is reporting in the media again that the surge line is
temporary and will come down when South Carolina is up and running. He will send us the transcript of conference calls
and/or media articles. Isnt this inconsistent with what Conner said?
NLRB-FOIA-00012016
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Katz,
Cc:
Ahearn, Richard L.; Willen, Debra L; 'Jude Bryan'
Subject:
FW: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
Judy; Omberg, Bob; Baniszewski, Joseph
Operator
Michael Mecham
W. McNerney
NLRB-FOIA-00012017
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
cc:
NLRB-FOIA-00012018
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam
Boeing
Hi Miriam
Just to get you up to speed on the Boeing draft. Barry requested minor changes in our draft
Exemption 5
He wanted me to clear up McNerneys and Albaughs titles. It seems McNearney is and remains CEO. Albaugh used to
be CEO of the military division and became CEO of the commercial planes division.
I made the changes and gave it back to him, and he then okayed it. New version of draft is attached.
Hope you are having a good weekend and not checking your e-mail.
--Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012019
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012020
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012021
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012022
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012023
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012024
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012025
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012026
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012027
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012028
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012029
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012030
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012031
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012032
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012033
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012034
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012035
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012036
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012037
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012038
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012039
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012040
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012041
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012042
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012043
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012044
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012045
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012046
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012047
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012048
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012049
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012050
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012051
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012052
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012053
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012054
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012055
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012056
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012057
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012058
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012059
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012060
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012061
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012062
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012063
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012064
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012065
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012066
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012067
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012068
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012069
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012070
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012071
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012072
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012073
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012074
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012075
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012076
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012077
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012078
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Szapiro, Miriam
Subject:
Boeing -- P.S.
Im leaving the hard copy of the revised draft and the version with Barrys edits/comments in your in-box.
NLRB-FOIA-00012079
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Kearney, Barry J.
Cc:
Szapiro, Miriam
Subject:
Boeing
Attachments:
Ive made Jaymes changes and put the draft into final. Here it is
NLRB-FOIA-00012080
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012081
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012082
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012083
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012084
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012085
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012086
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012087
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012088
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012089
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012090
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012091
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012092
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012093
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012094
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012095
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012096
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012097
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012098
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012099
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012100
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012101
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012102
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012103
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012104
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012105
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012106
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012107
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012108
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012109
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012110
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012111
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012112
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012113
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012114
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Friday, February 04, 2011 9:54 AM
RE: Boeing
By all means
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 9:53 AM
To: Szapiro, Miriam; Kearney, Barry J.
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012115
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Friday, February 04, 2011 4:04 PM
Szapiro, Miriam
FW : Boeing
Sorry Miriam I meant to address this to you as well.
Subject: RE: Boeing
New version attached. See p. 22 for the change.
Subject: RE: Boeing
By all means
Subject: Boeing
),
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012116
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012117
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012118
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012119
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012120
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012121
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012122
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012123
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012124
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012125
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012126
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012127
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012128
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012129
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012130
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012131
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012132
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012133
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012134
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012135
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012136
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012137
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012138
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012139
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012140
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012141
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012142
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012143
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012144
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012145
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012146
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012147
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012148
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012149
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-0001215
NLRB-FOIA-00012150
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Friday, February 04, 2011 4:05 PM
W illen, Debra L
RE: Boeing
Hmph! (I forgive you)
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 4:04 PM
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: FW: Boeing
Sorry Miriam I meant to address this to you as well.
Subject: RE: Boeing
Subject: RE: Boeing
By all means
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 5
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00012151
Recipient
Read
Willen, Debra L
Deleted: 2/7/2011 8:15 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00012152
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sent:
Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:55 AM
To:
Cc:
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Subject:
FW: Boeing
fyi
Subject: Boeing
Barry: I will give you a call tomorrow to follow up on our discussions regarding the ULP charge against
Boeing. In the meantime, I have looked at the five cases you cited to me that you believe provide legal support
for a potential complaint. I have given these cases a very careful review and do not believe that they support the
issuance of a complaint against Boeing. I ask that you share this with Lafe.
In my December 7 letter, I explained several independent reasons why the law does not support a
Section 8(a)(3) complaint in this case. First among those reasons was the absence of any adverse employment
action: no current employees at the Puget Sound plant have been harmed by Boeings decision, because there
will be no layoffs, work transfers, or any other change in their employment because of Boeings decision to
expand production at a new facility in Charleston.
You have suggested that the following cases could support a conclusion that Boeings employees have
suffered an adverse employment action: (1) Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. and United Mine Workers
of Am., 355 N.L.R.B. No. 197, 2010 WL 3813246 (Sept. 29, 2010); (2) Cold Heading Co. and International
Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, 332
N.L.R.B. 956 (2000); and (3) Peter ODovero d/b/a Associated Constructors and ODovero Construction, Inc.
and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 324, 325 N.L.R.B. 998 (1998), enfd, ODovero v.
NLRB, 193 F.3d 532 (D.C. Cir. 1999). But these cases do not support an adverse employment action finding
in Boeings case.
The Pittsburg & Midway case involved the employers modification of an existing bonus plan in retaliation
against employees use of memorial (non-work) days to exert economic pressure, as they were contractually
employment action in that case. But in Boeings case, there was no plan that Boeing changed in response to
employee activity. Boeings selection of Charleston was an initial decision and did not violate or modify any
pre-existing plan. The Pittsburg & Midway case is also of dubious weight because it was issued after Boeings
Charleston decision (raising retroactivity problems), and also because the Boards decision is currently on
petition for review before the D.C. Circuit and has at least a reasonable chance of being reversed or modified.
The Cold Heading case is not on point. It was a straightforward runaway shop case where the employer rerouted and transferred equipment from a union worksite to a non-union worksite, because of union
activity. Those transfers were likely to result in layoffs at the union shop. In contrast, Boeing has not
NLRB-FOIA-00012153
transferred any work or equipment, and has no plans to do so. There will be no layoffs and no reduction in 787
production in Puget Sound now or in the future.
The ODovero case is another straightforward work transfer case, and is also not on point. The single employer
transferred work covered by the scope of the collective bargaining agreement away from union employees and
assigned it to non-union employees, because of union activity, leading to less union employment. Here, Boeing
is not transferring any work from the IAM. 787 production at the first final assembly line in Puget Sound will
not go down as a result of Boeings decision; indeed, the number of IAM employees will increase because of
Boeings surge line plans. No layoffs will occur either in the near term or long term.
You suggested that a fourth case, the Fifth Circuits decision in National Fabricators, Inc. v. NLRB, 903
F.3d 396 (5th Cir. 1990) (enforcing National Fabricators, Inc. and United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local 198,
295 N.L.R.B. 1095 (1989)) somehow limits the Supreme Courts statements in NLRB v. Brown Food Store, 380
U.S. 278 (1965) that recognized a broad scope of permissible employer actions and motivations to blunt the
economic impact of a potential future strike. The employer in National Fabricators committed an adverse
employment actionlaying off employeesin a plainly discriminatory way, by selecting only union
employees for the layoffs, violating its usual seniority rules. The employers discrimination against union
activity was so apparent that the Fifth Circuit and Board agreed it fit into the rarely-seen category of inherently
destructive conduct. National Fabricators was a simple application of the non-discrimination principle; it says
nothing about the ability of an employer to blunt the effectiveness of possible future strikes through nondiscriminatory capital investment decisionsa right recognized by the Supreme Court in Brown and again in
Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. NLRB, 454 U.S. 404, 416 n.9 (1982). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit's
decision does not even mention Brown.
Finally, you suggested that a fifth case, Dorsey Trailers, Inc. Northumberland, PA Plant and United
Auto Workers International Union and its Local 1868, International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, 327 N.L.R.B. 835
(1999), supports a broad view of the Boards remedial powers should a Section 8(a)(3) violation be found. This
case, you indicated, would support the remedy sought here: ordering Boeing to permanently expand 787
production in Puget Sound to ten airplanes per month. Although you mentioned only the Board decision in
Dorsey Trailers, that decision was later reversed, in the parts most relevant to Boeings case, by the Fourth
Circuit. The Fourth Circuit held that the employers relocation decision was justified by valid economic
considerations (including labor costs), and that ordering the closed plant re-opened was therefore beyond the
scope of the Boards power. The Fourth Circuits reversal on the relocation point and the re-opening order
gives the Boards decision below no effective precedential weight. In any event, unlike the employer in Dorsey
Trailers, Boeing is not reducing work in Puget Sound or planning any work transfers or layoffs, much less
shutting down the Puget Sound assembly line. The Boards decision Dorsey Trailers does not support the
proposed remedy here.
Best, Bill
William J. Kilberg
GIBSON DUNN
Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1 202.530.9559
NLRB-FOIA-00012154
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Szapiro, Miriam
Subject:
FW: Boeing
Is he trying to aggravate me???
Doesn't sound like we've moved Boeing from its position of last October.
How much longer are we going to wait?
________________________________________
Subject: FW: Boeing
fyi
________________________________
Subject: Boeing
Barry: I will give you a call tomorrow to follow up on our discussions regarding the ULP charge against Boeing. In the
meantime, I have looked at the five cases you cited to me that you believe provide legal support for a potential
complaint. I have given these cases a very careful review and do not believe that they support the issuance of a
complaint against Boeing. I ask that you share this with Lafe.
In my December 7 letter, I explained several independent reasons why the law does not support a Section 8(a)(3)
complaint in this case. First among those reasons was the absence of any adverse employment action: no current
employees at the Puget Sound plant have been harmed by Boeings decision, because there will be no layoffs, work
transfers, or any other change in their employment because of Boeings decision to expand production at a new facility
in Charleston.
You have suggested that the following cases could support a conclusion that Boeings employees have suffered an
adverse employment action: (1) Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. and United Mine Workers of Am., 355 N.L.R.B. No.
197, 2010 WL 3813246 (Sept. 29, 2010); (2) Cold Heading Co. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, 332 N.L.R.B. 956 (2000); and (3) Peter ODovero d/b/a
Associated Constructors and ODovero Construction, Inc. and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 324, 325
N.L.R.B. 998 (1998), enfd, ODovero v. NLRB, 193 F.3d 532 (D.C. Cir. 1999). But these cases do not support an adverse
employment action finding in Boeings case.
The Pittsburg & Midway case involved the employers modification of an existing bonus plan in
retaliation against employees use of memorial (non-work) days to exert economic pressure, as they were contractually
employment action in that case. But in Boeings case, there was no plan that Boeing changed in response to employee
activity. Boeings selection of Charleston was an initial decision and did not violate or modify any pre-existing plan. The
Pittsburg & Midway case is also of dubious weight because it was issued after Boeings Charleston decision (raising
NLRB-FOIA-00012155
retroactivity problems), and also because the Boards decision is currently on petition for review before the D.C. Circuit
and has at least a reasonable chance of being reversed or modified.
The Cold Heading case is not on point. It was a straightforward runaway shop case where the
employer re-routed and transferred equipment from a union worksite to a non-union worksite, because of union
activity. Those transfers were likely to result in layoffs at the union shop. In contrast, Boeing has not transferred any
work or equipment, and has no plans to do so. There will be no layoffs and no reduction in 787 production in Puget
Sound now or in the future.
The ODovero case is another straightforward work transfer case, and is also not on point. The single
employer transferred work covered by the scope of the collective bargaining agreement away from union employees
and assigned it to non-union employees, because of union activity, leading to less union employment. Here, Boeing is
not transferring any work from the IAM. 787 production at the first final assembly line in Puget Sound will not go down
as a result of Boeings decision; indeed, the number of IAM employees will increase because of Boeings surge line
plans. No layoffs will occur either in the near term or long term.
You suggested that a fourth case, the Fifth Circuits decision in National Fabricators, Inc. v. NLRB, 903 F.3d 396 (5th Cir.
1990) (enforcing National Fabricators, Inc. and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local 198, 295 N.L.R.B. 1095 (1989)) somehow limits the
Supreme Courts statements in NLRB v. Brown Food Store, 380 U.S. 278 (1965) that recognized a broad scope of
permissible employer actions and motivations to blunt the economic impact of a potential future strike. The employer
in National Fabricators committed an adverse employment actionlaying off employeesin a plainly discriminatory
way, by selecting only union employees for the layoffs, violating its usual seniority rules. The employers discrimination
against union activity was so apparent that the Fifth Circuit and Board agreed it fit into the rarely-seen category of
inherently destructive conduct. National Fabricators was a simple application of the non-discrimination principle; it
says nothing about the ability of an employer to blunt the effectiveness of possible future strikes through nondiscriminatory capital investment decisionsa right recognized by the Supreme Court in Brown and again in Charles D.
Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. Nlrb, 454 U.S. 404, 416 n.9 (1982). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit's decision does not even
mention Brown.
Finally, you suggested that a fifth case, Dorsey Trailers, Inc. Northumberland, PA Plant and United Auto Workers
International Union and its Local 1868, International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, 327 N.L.R.B. 835 (1999), supports a broad view
of the Boards remedial powers should a Section 8(a)(3) violation be found. This case, you indicated, would support the
remedy sought here: ordering Boeing to permanently expand 787 production in Puget Sound to ten airplanes per
month. Although you mentioned only the Board decision in Dorsey Trailers, that decision was later reversed, in the
parts most relevant to Boeings case, by the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit held that the employers relocation
decision was justified by valid economic considerations (including labor costs), and that ordering the closed plant reopened was therefore beyond the scope of the Boards power. The Fourth Circuits reversal on the relocation point and
the re-opening order gives the Boards decision below no effective precedential weight. In any event, unlike the
employer in Dorsey Trailers, Boeing is not reducing work in Puget Sound or planning any work transfers or layoffs, much
less shutting down the Puget Sound assembly line. The Boards decision Dorsey Trailers does not support the proposed
remedy here.
Best, Bill
William J. Kilberg
GIBSON DUNN
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<http://www.gibsondunn.com>
NLRB-FOIA-00012156
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
To:
Willen, Debra L
Subject:
RE: Boeing
Rest up!
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 4:04 PM
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: FW: Boeing
Is he trying to aggravate me???
Doesn't sound like we've moved Boeing from its position of last October.
How much longer are we going to wait?
________________________________________
Subject: FW: Boeing
fyi
________________________________
Subject: Boeing
Barry: I will give you a call tomorrow to follow up on our discussions regarding the ULP charge against Boeing. In the
meantime, I have looked at the five cases you cited to me that you believe provide legal support for a potential
complaint. I have given these cases a very careful review and do not believe that they support the issuance of a
complaint against Boeing. I ask that you share this with Lafe.
In my December 7 letter, I explained several independent reasons why the law does not support a Section 8(a)(3)
complaint in this case. First among those reasons was the absence of any adverse employment action: no current
employees at the Puget Sound plant have been harmed by Boeings decision, because there will be no layoffs, work
transfers, or any other change in their employment because of Boeings decision to expand production at a new facility
in Charleston.
You have suggested that the following cases could support a conclusion that Boeings employees have suffered an
adverse employment action: (1) Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. and United Mine Workers of Am., 355 N.L.R.B. No.
197, 2010 WL 3813246 (Sept. 29, 2010); (2) Cold Heading Co. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, 332 N.L.R.B. 956 (2000); and (3) Peter ODovero d/b/a
NLRB-FOIA-00012157
Associated Constructors and ODovero Construction, Inc. and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 324, 325
N.L.R.B. 998 (1998), enfd, ODovero v. NLRB, 193 F.3d 532 (D.C. Cir. 1999). But these cases do not support an adverse
employment action finding in Boeings case.
The Pittsburg & Midway case involved the employers modification of an existing bonus plan in
retaliation against employees use of memorial (non-work) days to exert economic pressure, as they were contractually
employment action in that case. But in Boeings case, there was no plan that Boeing changed in response to employee
activity. Boeings selection of Charleston was an initial decision and did not violate or modify any pre-existing plan. The
Pittsburg & Midway case is also of dubious weight because it was issued after Boeings Charleston decision (raising
retroactivity problems), and also because the Boards decision is currently on petition for review before the D.C. Circuit
and has at least a reasonable chance of being reversed or modified.
The Cold Heading case is not on point. It was a straightforward runaway shop case where the
employer re-routed and transferred equipment from a union worksite to a non-union worksite, because of union
activity. Those transfers were likely to result in layoffs at the union shop. In contrast, Boeing has not transferred any
work or equipment, and has no plans to do so. There will be no layoffs and no reduction in 787 production in Puget
Sound now or in the future.
The ODovero case is another straightforward work transfer case, and is also not on point. The single
employer transferred work covered by the scope of the collective bargaining agreement away from union employees
and assigned it to non-union employees, because of union activity, leading to less union employment. Here, Boeing is
not transferring any work from the IAM. 787 production at the first final assembly line in Puget Sound will not go down
as a result of Boeings decision; indeed, the number of IAM employees will increase because of Boeings surge line
plans. No layoffs will occur either in the near term or long term.
You suggested that a fourth case, the Fifth Circuits decision in National Fabricators, Inc. v. NLRB, 903 F.3d 396 (5th Cir.
1990) (enforcing National Fabricators, Inc. and United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local 198, 295 N.L.R.B. 1095 (1989)) somehow limits the
Supreme Courts statements in NLRB v. Brown Food Store, 380 U.S. 278 (1965) that recognized a broad scope of
permissible employer actions and motivations to blunt the economic impact of a potential future strike. The employer
in National Fabricators committed an adverse employment actionlaying off employeesin a plainly discriminatory
way, by selecting only union employees for the layoffs, violating its usual seniority rules. The employers discrimination
against union activity was so apparent that the Fifth Circuit and Board agreed it fit into the rarely-seen category of
inherently destructive conduct. National Fabricators was a simple application of the non-discrimination principle; it
says nothing about the ability of an employer to blunt the effectiveness of possible future strikes through nondiscriminatory capital investment decisionsa right recognized by the Supreme Court in Brown and again in Charles D.
Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. Nlrb, 454 U.S. 404, 416 n.9 (1982). Indeed, the Fifth Circuit's decision does not even
mention Brown.
Finally, you suggested that a fifth case, Dorsey Trailers, Inc. Northumberland, PA Plant and United Auto Workers
International Union and its Local 1868, International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, 327 N.L.R.B. 835 (1999), supports a broad view
of the Boards remedial powers should a Section 8(a)(3) violation be found. This case, you indicated, would support the
remedy sought here: ordering Boeing to permanently expand 787 production in Puget Sound to ten airplanes per
month. Although you mentioned only the Board decision in Dorsey Trailers, that decision was later reversed, in the
parts most relevant to Boeings case, by the Fourth Circuit. The Fourth Circuit held that the employers relocation
decision was justified by valid economic considerations (including labor costs), and that ordering the closed plant reopened was therefore beyond the scope of the Boards power. The Fourth Circuits reversal on the relocation point and
the re-opening order gives the Boards decision below no effective precedential weight. In any event, unlike the
employer in Dorsey Trailers, Boeing is not reducing work in Puget Sound or planning any work transfers or layoffs, much
less shutting down the Puget Sound assembly line. The Boards decision Dorsey Trailers does not support the proposed
remedy here.
Best, Bill
William J. Kilberg
NLRB-FOIA-00012158
GIBSON DUNN
Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1 202.530.9559
WKilberg@gibsondunn.com www.gibsondunn.com<http://www.gibsondunn.com>
NLRB-FOIA-00012159
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject:
RE:
Exemption 5
From: Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW:
Cc: Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW:
Subject:
billion.
South Carolina."
NLRB-FOIA-00012160
Thanks, Dave
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
NLRB-FOIA-00012161
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
To:
Willen, Debra L
Subject:
RE:
Tracking:
Tracking
Recipient
Read
Willen, Debra L
Deleted: 4/8/2011 9:42 AM
Exemption 5
To: Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE:
Exemption 5
From: Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW:
Subject: FW:
Subject:
NLRB-FOIA-00012162
billion.
South Carolina."
Thanks, Dave
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
NLRB-FOIA-00012163
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Szapiro, Miriam
Subject:
FW: Advice Memorandum - Case 19-CA-32431
Attachments:
ADV.19-CA-32431.Response2.Boeing.dlw.doc; image001.gif; image002.gif
OMG! Do tell -- what's the latest?
____________________________________
From: Bush, Lynn
[cid:image002.gif@01CBF867.F563A7E0]
Lynn
NLRB-FOIA-00012164
NLRB-FOIA-00012165
NLRB-FOIA-00012166
Advice Memorandum
DATE:
April 11, 2011
S.A.M.
TO:
Region 19
FROM:
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
line.
activity.
the agreement.

NLRB-FOIA-00012167
Case 19-CA-32431
- 2 -


FACTS

this Agreement[.]
ten employees.

Section 21.7
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00012168
Case 19-CA-32431
- 3 -


In

For example,




strike.

is a big deal[.]

NLRB-FOIA-00012169
Case 19-CA-32431
- 4 -
strike zone[.]


Kiga
above.
summit in Chicago.

IAM representatives

This was the first
ended.
1 In his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
2
Union had struck.

in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
NLRB-FOIA-00012170
Case 19-CA-32431
- 5 -
future strikes.

Doug Kight.
labor relations.

At a subsequent
supplier issues.

IAM

Boeing agreed to

customers.

During August,
NLRB-FOIA-00012171
Case 19-CA-32431
- 6 -

Meanwhile, the
assembly line.



The Union said

At the end of the


On September

But truthfully, it
NLRB-FOIA-00012172
Case 19-CA-32431
- 7 -

So weve become an
reliable supplier.
do.
weeks.

Carolina.
on October 1.

The Union

In

The Union
control.

When a Union
would get more.

NLRB-FOIA-00012173
Case 19-CA-32431
- 8 -

The Union

Also,
Carolina.
negotiations.


Conner


committee.
generation product.

Indeed, the

get back to him.
NLRB-FOIA-00012174
Case 19-CA-32431
- 9 -

We would obviously


...
And so some of the
Sound.

Our customers
couple of weeks.

Michalski explained
of conduct.
not respond.

He wanted

Keating did not
their State.

On
seven years.
NLRB-FOIA-00012175
Case 19-CA-32431
- 10 -

In a press

The managers were

line.


The
our customers eyes.


customers.
NLRB-FOIA-00012176
Case 19-CA-32431
- 11 -
Jim Albaugh.

The

history.
haul.
with the union.

of wages.
Charleston.

... And


NLRB-FOIA-00012177
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -

It was that
three years.
schedule.

Approximately 1,740
approximately 60%.
ACTION


Then, when Boeing

It also
election.
years.
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00012178
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
the Union.



Nor could Boeing
months.
problems.

activity.
rights.

NLRB-FOIA-00012179
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -

The Court


supplier strategy.9
plant.
employment.10
activity.12
Ibid.
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
See id. at 520.
10
See id. at 520-21.
11
See id. at 521.
12
See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00012180
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
date.13

Thus, telling

unlawful threats.17
13
14
th
mem. 50 F.3d 1037 (11
1997).
15
Aelco Corp., 326 NLRB 1262, 1265 (1998).

See also Dorsey
th
part 233 F.3d 831 (4
16
311 NLRB at 1200.

17
unionized).
18
Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00012181
Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -

An employer may
to predicting

Some statements

Others were
testifies.21

And statements
(1)

During the call,
Sound.22
(2)

The
19
20
consequences).
21
22
23
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00012182
Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -
(3)
strikes.25
(4)
activity.26
II.

Instead of
24
to employees.
25

If
26
NLRB-FOIA-00012183
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -

Future work
desirable 787 jobs.

layoffs.
layoffs.
implemented.

In


its nonunion plant.

employees.30
27
28
Ibid.
29
th
Cir. 1990).
30
See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00012184
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
have performed.




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

See also
32
33
34
35
NLRB-FOIA-00012185
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
activity.36
strike.
strike.38

And the Board has
right to strike.
36
37
380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38
See id. at 283-85.
39
See id. at 284.
40
See ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00012186
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
substantial.42


Boeing has

The substantial

In addition, Boeing
Washington.

In
striking.

th
41
See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
42
Cir.
See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
43
NLRB-FOIA-00012187
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent.44
rights.45



the employees.46
employee rights.47
Paper.

Second, Boeings

position.
44
228, 231 (1963).

th
(4
Cir. 2000).
45
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
46
47

See also
NLRB-FOIA-00012188
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -


And the many
with the union.48


Section 8(a)(3).
48
49
NLRB-FOIA-00012189
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
subject.
A.

Alternatively, the

unit jobs.54
50
51
52
Ibid.
53
54
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00012190
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
bargaining unit.55
an expanded unit.56
jobs.57

Even

The work
unit employees.


In fact,
escalating.
55
56
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
57
134 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998).

NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
58
59
NLRB-FOIA-00012191
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009.
Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
B.

The Board will

In interpreting

This
60
61
See id. at 812, fn. 19.
62
64
See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00012192
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
contract.66
agreement.




65
Id. at 1260.
66
Id. at 1262.
67
68
th
Cir.
NLRB-FOIA-00012193
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -

also lacks merit.


Absent
modifications.71
69

70
71
NLRB-FOIA-00012194
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
rights.72


At present,

Thus, the
72
the Act).
73
1093 (1996).
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00012195
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.J.K.
ROFs - 9
74

The Region should

In the

This will
NLRB-FOIA-00012196
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
To:
Willen, Debra L
Subject:
RE: Advice Memorandum - Case 19-CA-32431
I'm so glad you saw this - I almost texted you but then realized I didn't have your number. Hahaha oh well. So Barry
brought me and Jayme in this afternoon at almost 4:00, and told us that Boeing refused to negotiate, Patty Murray
didn't want to get involved, and that Graham spoke again w/ Lafe, making additional threats. Lafe authorized the
complaint and Barry told me he wanted to get this out today (he's out tomorrow and I think he wanted to move before
anyone got cold feet, again). I was skimming through the draft at 4:30 or so to make sure I had the right version, and
just to give it a final check, when Barry came in looking for it. I raced through the rest of it, brought it to Barry, who
signed off, and voila! We may be in for a rocky ride, but at least we're on the road. Ellen came in about 5:30 and was
like, what? (she'd been in mtgs, then came back and saw it was out). She was very glad we finally got it together. So, we
shall see...
non-responsive
________________________________________
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: FW: Advice Memorandum - Case 19-CA-32431
OMG! Do tell -- what's the latest?
____________________________________
From: Bush, Lynn
Lynn
NLRB-FOIA-00012197
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Szapiro, Miriam
Farrell, Ellen
FW : Boeing Co.
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
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.
Exemption 5
Thanks,
Deb Willen
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00012198
Recipient
Read
Farrell, Ellen
Read: 4/12/2011 3:27 PM
NLRB-FOIA-00012199
Ex. 5 Deliberative and still a draft
NLRB-FOIA-00012200
NLRB-FOIA-00012201
NLRB-FOIA-00012202
NLRB-FOIA-00012203
NLRB-FOIA-00012204
NLRB-FOIA-00012205
NLRB-FOIA-00012206
NLRB-FOIA-00012207
NLRB-FOIA-00012208
NLRB-FOIA-00012209
NLRB-FOIA-00012210
NLRB-FOIA-00012211
NLRB-FOIA-00012212
NLRB-FOIA-00012213
NLRB-FOIA-00012214
NLRB-FOIA-00012215
NLRB-FOIA-00012216
NLRB-FOIA-00012217
NLRB-FOIA-00012218
NLRB-FOIA-00012219
NLRB-FOIA-00012220
NLRB-FOIA-00012221
NLRB-FOIA-00012222
NLRB-FOIA-00012223
NLRB-FOIA-00012224
NLRB-FOIA-00012225
NLRB-FOIA-00012226
NLRB-FOIA-00012227
NLRB-FOIA-00012228
NLRB-FOIA-00012229
NLRB-FOIA-00012230
NLRB-FOIA-00012231
NLRB-FOIA-00012232
NLRB-FOIA-00012233
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012234
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012235
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012236
Microsoft Outlook
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
RE: Advice Memorandum - Case 19-CA-32431
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Non-Responsive
________________________________________
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: Advice Memorandum - Case 19-CA-32431
Thanks for the report Miriam.
Non-Responsive
See you on Thursday--
Deb
cell:
Exemption 6
________________________________________
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: Advice Memorandum - Case 19-CA-32431
I'm so glad you saw this - I almost texted you but then realized I didn't have your number.
Hahaha oh well. So Barry brought me and Jayme in this afternoon at almost 4:00, and told us
that Boeing refused to negotiate, Patty Murray didn't want to get involved, and that Graham
spoke again w/ Lafe, making additional threats. Lafe authorized the complaint and Barry told
me he wanted to get this out today (he's out tomorrow and I think he wanted to move before
anyone got cold feet, again).
I was skimming through the draft at 4:30 or so to make sure I
had the right version, and just to give it a final check, when Barry came in looking for it.
I raced through the rest of it, brought it to Barry, who signed off, and voila! We may be in
for a rocky ride, but at least we're on the road. Ellen came in about 5:30 and was like,
what? (she'd been in mtgs, then came back and saw it was out). She was very glad we finally
got it together. So, we shall see...
Non-Responsive
See you soon, Miriam ________________________________________
To: Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: FW: Advice Memorandum - Case 19-CA-32431
OMG!
Do tell -- what's the latest?
____________________________________
From: Bush, Lynn
NLRB-FOIA-00012237
Lynn
NLRB-FOIA-00012238
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Cc:
Subject:
Boeing Co.
Attachments:
Rich
Thanks,
Deb Willen
NLRB-FOIA-00012239
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012240
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012241
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012242
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012243
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012244
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012245
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012246
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012247
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012248
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012249
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012250
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012251
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012252
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012253
NLRB-FOIA-00012254
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; W illen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
The Boeing Company, 19-CA-32811
CHG.19-CA-032811.Boeing.pdf
This is the charge I discussed with Ellen. A few relevant documents will be sent shortly. Also look at
page 11, fn 9 of the Employers Dec. 8, 2010 submission to Advice.
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00012255
206 + 378 + 413 2
2/2
11-01-2010
03:14:03 p.m .
SCBI
FO R M E X E M PT U N D E R 44 U S C 3512
UNITED STA TES O F A M ERICA
NATIO NAL LA BO R RELATIO NS B O A RD
C H A R G E A G A IN ST E M PL O Y E R
IN T E R N E -r
FO R M N L R B -501
(2-08)
D O N O T W R IT E IN T H IS SP A C E
D ate Filed
C ase
1 1 /1 /1 0
19-CA-32811
IN STR U C TIO N S:
File an original w ith NLRB R egional D irector forthe region in w hich the alleged unfair laborpractice o ccurred oris occurring.
1.E M PL O Y E R A G A IN ST W H O M C H A R G E IS B R O U G H T
a N am e of Em ployer
I Tel No' 206-662-9091
c. C ell No.
T he B oeing C o m p an y
d A ddress (Street, city. state,and ZIP code)

P O B ox 3707
S eattle, W A 9 8 1 2 4
f. Fax No - 206-662-9001
a Em ployer R epresentative
g. e-M ail
D oug K ight
h. N um t;er of w orkers em ployed
25,000
i. Type of E stablishm ent (factory,m ine,w holesaler,etc)
p ro d u ctio n facility
j Identify principal product orservtce
com m ercial airp lan es
k.The above-nam ed em ployer has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices w ithin the m eaning of section 8(a), subsections (1) and (list
subsections) 8(a)(1) an d 8 (a)(3 )
ofthe N ational Labor R elations A ct. and these unfair labor
practices are practices affecting com m erce w ithin the m eaning of the A ct,or these unfair labor practices are unfair practices affecting com m erce
w ithin the m eaning of the A ct and the Postal R eorganization A ct
2. B asis of the C harge (setforth a clear and concise staternentofthe facts constituting the a/legred unfairlaborpractices)
W ithin th e last six m o n th s, th e B oeing C o m p an y h as violated S ectio n 8(a)(1) an d 8(a)(3) of th e A ct by beginning to tran sfer
fabrication an d a ssem b ly of airp lan e interior p arts for th e 787 D ream lin er to a new facility em ploying non-union w o rk ers in
retaliation for b arg ain in g unit w o rk ers' p ro tected co n certed activity.
3. Full nam e of party filing charD (iflabororganization,give fullnam e,includin8 localnam e and num ber)
istrict L odge, 751
ach in ists an d A ero sp ace W orkers,

In tern atio n al A sso ciatio n
4a A ddress (Streetand num ber,city, state,and ZIP code)
4b. Tel N o.
c/o S ch w erin C am p b ell B arn ard Iglitzin an d L avitt, L L P
18 W . M ercer ST .
4c. Cell N o.
S u ite 4 0 0
S eattle, W A 98119
4d. lax No 206-378-4132
206-285-2828
4e e-M ail
cam p b ell@ w o rk erlaw .co m
5. Full nam e of national or international labor organization ofw hich itis an affiliate or constituent unit (to be M ad in w hen charge is filed by a labor
organization) In tern atio n al A sso ciatio n of M achinists an d A ero sp ace

W o rk ers
6. DECLARATION
Ideclare that Ihave read the above charge and at the statem ents are true to the best ofm y know ledge and belief,
13
g a tu reof
A ddress
18 W
- _ye
00..
( am p7 0b&el
vid
P nCt4y
n pe n f" A toIlernorey
office.ifany)
M ercer S t., S te. 4 0 0 , S eattle, W A 98119
a;e
andtft
Tel. N o.
206-285-2828
C ell N o.
O ffice ifany,
0' 206-.378-4132
e-M ail
11/11/10
(date)
cam p b ell@ w o rk ed aw corn
O L L FU L FA LSE STA TEM EN TS O N TH IS C H A R G E CAN BE PU N ISH ED BY FINE AND IM PRISO N M EN T (U.S. C O D E, TITLE 18. SEC TIO N 1001)
P R I"C Y A C T STATEM ENT
Solicitation of the inform ation on this form isauthorized by the N ational Labor R elations A ct (NLRA), 29 U.S C 151 etseq.The principal use ofthe inform ation isto assist
the N ational Labor R elations Board (NLRB) in processing unfair labor practice and related proceedings or litigation The routine uses forthe inform ation are fully set forth in
the Federal R egister, 71 Fed. R eg. 74942-43 (D ec. 13, 2006). The NLRB will further explain these uses upon request. D isclosure of this inform ation to the NLRB is
lax
voluntary; how ever, failure to supply the inform ation willcause the NLRB to decline lo invoke its processes.
NOV-01-2010
13:52
206+378+4132
94%
P.02
NLRB-FOIA-00012256
CE IV E0
It-R B
1 112-5 6
L L -VVA
SEK f'If
NLRB-FOIA-00012257
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
RE: The Boeing Company, 19-CA-32811
FYI The Employer asserted in the cited footnote that this charge was barred by Section 10(b).
I remember this charge
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
This is the charge I discussed with Ellen. A few relevant documents will be sent shortly. Also look at
page 11, fn 9 of the Employers Dec. 8, 2010 submission to Advice.
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00012258
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
draft response to state AGs
AG response.doc
NLRB-FOIA-00012259
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012260
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012261
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012262
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012263
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Dodds, Amy L.
Boeing -- revised draft response to state AGs
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012264
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Solomon:
tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00012265
April 27, 2011
Page 2
back to work.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
NLRB-FOIA-00012266
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00012267
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012268
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012269
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012270
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sophir, Jayme
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012271
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Solomon:
tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00012272
April 27, 2011
Page 2
back to work.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
NLRB-FOIA-00012273
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00012274
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012275
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012276
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012277
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Farrell, Ellen
Kearney, Barry J.; W illen, Debra L; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012278
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Solomon:
tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00012279
April 27, 2011
Page 2
back to work.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
NLRB-FOIA-00012280
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00012281
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012282
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012283
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012284
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam; Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
Dodds, Amy L.
Fine by me too.
To: Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Willen, Debra L; Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
I like Jaymes point and Ellens modification; its a good addition.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00012285
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012286
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; W illen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012287
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Sophir, Jayme; Farrell, Ellen; W illen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Dodds, Amy L.
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00012288
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012289
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Farrell, Ellen; Szapiro, Miriam
Dodds, Amy L.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00012290
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012291
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012292
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012293
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012294
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Solomon:
tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00012295
April 27, 2011
Page 2
back to work.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
NLRB-FOIA-00012296
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00012297
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
W illen, Debra L; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
That was my take on it.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Sophir, Jayme; Farrell, Ellen; Szapiro, Miriam
I'm having difficulty here--
By clean draft , I take it that he means a draft that incorporates Ellen's revision of Jayme's change?
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00012298
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012299
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kearney, Barry J.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00012300
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012301
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012302
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012303
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012304
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Solomon:
tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00012305
April 27, 2011
Page 2
back to work.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
NLRB-FOIA-00012306
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00012307
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Szapiro, Miriam
Miriam - Szapiro
Miriam Szapiro
202-273-0998
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00012308
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Notwithstanding that this case is about retaliation for striking in other states,
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012309
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012310
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012311
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012312
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Solomon:
tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00012313
April 27, 2011
Page 2
back to work.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
NLRB-FOIA-00012314
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00012315
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Farrell, Ellen
RE: CBS evening news
This whole thing needs to be re-couched as W ashington state employees being screwed by Boeing because they chose
to strike; not the SC employees being screwed by the NLRB because Boeing was retaliating against the Union (thats
true; but it doesnt explain the underlying story). This story appeared balanced but its thrust was to pit the needs of
employees (SC) vs the rights of the (W ashington).
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00012316
Recipient
Read
Willen, Debra L
Read: 6/8/2011 10:30 AM
Kearney, Barry J.
Read: 6/8/2011 10:07 AM
Sophir, Jayme
Read: 6/8/2011 11:48 AM
Farrell, Ellen
Read: 6/8/2011 10:03 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00012317
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
W illen, Debra L
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Farrell, Ellen
RE: CBS evening news
Sorry left out a word
To: Willen, Debra L
Cc: Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: RE: CBS evening news
This whole thing needs to be re-couched as W ashington state employees being screwed by Boeing because they chose
to strike; not the SC employees being screwed by the NLRB because Boeing was retaliating against the Union (thats
true; but it doesnt explain the underlying story). This story appeared balanced but its thrust was to pit the needs of
employees (SC) vs the rights of the union
(W ashington).
Tracking:
NLRB-FOIA-00012318
Recipient
Read
Kearney, Barry J.
Read: 6/8/2011 10:07 AM
Sophir, Jayme
Farrell, Ellen
Read: 6/8/2011 10:03 AM
Willen, Debra L
Read: 6/8/2011 10:29 AM
NLRB-FOIA-00012319
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Todd, Dianne
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Video - Boeing
Attachments:
To: Todd, Dianne
Ms. Todd:
get to the video.
NLRB-FOIA-00012320
z
z
/ RZ
J UDS K LF R UWH[ W
7 RGD\
VQHZ VLQGH[

1: M
REV_1 : DXW
z
z
+ RP H
/ RFDO
{ + RP H
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
{
( GX FDWLRQ
3 R OLWLF V
2 E LWX DULHV
6 S HF LDOUHS R UWV
& RUUHF WLRQV
7 UDI I LF
: HDWKHU
1 LFROH% URGHXU
- HUU\ / DUJ H
{ ' DQQ\
: HVW
QHDW
{ % HOOHY X H
{ , VVDT XDK
{ . LUNODQG
1 DWLRQ: RUOG
{ + RP H
{ 3 R OLWLF V
% XVLQHVV7 HFK
{ + RP H
{ %RHLQJ $ HURVSDFH
{ 0 LFURVRI W
{ 1 :
FRP SDQLHV
{ 3 HUVRQDOW
HFK QRORJ \
{ 5 H DOHVWDWH
{ 6 W
RFNP DUNHW
{

NLRB-FOIA-00012321
% ULHU' XGOH\
5 HWDLO5 HS RUW
{ 6 RXQG
( FRQRP \
{ 6 XQGD\
%X] ]
6 S R UWV
{ + RP H
{ + LJ K
6 FKRRO
{ 0 DULQHUV
{ 6 HDKDZ NV
{ 6 RXQGHUV
) &
{ 6 WR UP
{ + XVNLHV
{ & RXJ DUV
{ 6 HDW
WOH8 QLY HUVLW\
{ & ROOHJ H
{ * RO
I
{ 2 O
\ P SLFV
{ 6 QRZ VS RUW
V
{ 2 W
K HUVS R UWV
{
{
{
) DQVKRS
6 WHY H. HOOH\

- HUU\ % UHZ HU
{ 6 LGHOLQH& K DW
WHU
( QWHUWDLQP HQW
{ + RP H
{ 5 HVW
DX UDQWV
{ 0 RYLHV
{ 0 XVLF
1 LJ KWOLI H
{ 7 K H$ UW
V
{ % RRNV
{ 7 9 OLVW
LQJ V
{ & DOOE R DUG
{
{
{
{
{

7 RGD\
VHY HQWV
6 X E P LWOLVWLQJ V
& RP LFV* DP HV
{ + RURVFRSHV
{ / RW
WHU\
/ LYLQJ
{ + RP H
{ ) RRG
: LQH
{ + RP H
* DUGHQ
{ 3 DFLI LF
1 : 0 DJ D] LQH
{ + HDOWK
{ :
7 UDY HO
{

NLRB-FOIA-00012322
{
{
{
{
{
{
+ RP H
6 HDWWOHJ X LGH
: DVKLQJ WRQJ XLGH
2 UHJ RQJ XLGH
7 UDY HOWR R OV
{
{
9 DF DWLR QUHQWDOV

5 LFN6 WHYHV
( XURSH
{ 7 UDLO
0 L[ 5 RQ- XGG
2 SLQLRQ
{ + RP H
{ / HW
{ 7 KH
' HP RFUDF\ 3 DSHUV
{
{
{
( G& HWHUD% ORJ
z
z
z
6 KRSSLQJ
- RE V
LQJ V
{ 3 RVW
DUHVX P H
{ & DUHHU& HQW
HU
{ 3 R VWDMR E
$ X WRV
{ 6 HDUF K DX W
R OLVWLQJ V
{ 5 HVHDUFK & HQW
HU
{ 6 HOODY HK LF OH
+ RP HV
{ 6 HDUFK
I RUQHZ KRP HV
LHV
{ 2 SHQ
KRXVHV
{ 6 HOODS UR S HUW
\
5 HQ WDOV
& ODVVLI LHGV
{ 3 R VWDOLVWLQ J
z
z
% X\ DGV
{ 2 QOLQHDGV
{ 1 HZ VSDSHU
DGV
{ & ODVVLI LHGDGV

1 HZ VSDSHUGHOLYHU\
& R QWDF WX V

NLRB-FOIA-00012323
& RP P HQWV
(
P DLODUWLF OH
3 ULQ WY LHZ
6 K DUH
9 LGHR_$ QLQW
HUYLHZ Z LW
K%RHLQJ& ( 2 - LP
6 RX QGDUHD
VI X WX UHLQWK H

NLRB-FOIA-00012324

NLRB-FOIA-00012325

NLRB-FOIA-00012326
(
P DLODUWLF OH
3 ULQ WY LHZ
6 K DUH
8 3' $ 7(

3 0
8 3' $ 7(

3 0
& RP P HQW
V

NLRB-FOIA-00012327

9 LGHR
* OHH
V%

UHVWR UHG% R HLQJ %

VDUH
2 SHQLQJ GD\ DW

( P HUDOG' RZ QV
% DUHI RRW7 HG

& RQ

0 RUHYLGHRV
$ GYH UWLVLQJ
$ 3 9 LGHR
7 HFK
0 DUNHWS ODF H
0 R VWUHDG

NLRB-FOIA-00012328
0 RVWFRP P HQWHG
0 R VWH
P DLOHG


VH[ I DUP LQ: KDW
FRP & RXQW
\
% HOOWRZ QK LJ K
ULVHZ R Q
WE HLP S ORGHG
: KDW
VP RUHDP D] LQJ W
' XGOH\
V%ORJ
6 HDK DZ NV
OHI W



7 K HWHD


) RJ HUVRQVD\ VKH
VKDSS\ Z KHUHKHLV





VH[ I DUP LQ: KDW
FRP & RXQW
\
% HOOWRZ QK LJ K
ULVHZ R Q
WE HLP S ORGHG
0 DX L
VK LJ K OLI H

$
6 LWHP DS


NLRB-FOIA-00012329

z
z
z
z
z
$ ERXWWKHFRP SDQ\
6 HUYLFHV
z
z
z
z
z
z

(
P DLOQHZ VOHWWHUV
& R QWDF WX V
6 X E P LWOLVWLQJ V
6 HQGX VQHZ VWLS V
1 HZ V
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
+ RP H
/ RFDO
1 DWLRQ: RUOG
% XVLQHVV7 HFK
( QWHUWDLQP HQW
/ LYLQJ
7 UDY HO
6 S R UWV
2 SLQLRQ
( [ WUDV
7 RGD\
VQHZ VLQGH[
0 DUNHWS ODFH
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
- RE V
$ X WRV
+ RP HV
5 HQ WDOV
& ODVVLI LHGV
6 KRSSLQJ
1 : VRXUFH
3 HUVRQDOV
3 R VWDQ DG
z
z
z
+ RP HGHOLYHU\
7 HP SRUDU\ VWRSV

NLRB-FOIA-00012330
2 WK HUHG LWLRQ V
z
z
z
z
z
z
1 HZ VE\ H
P DLO
0 RELOH
5 6 6 I HHGV
H
( GLWLR Q
/ RZ
J UDS K LF
7 Z LWWHU


NLRB-FOIA-00012331
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Monday, May 24, 2010 3:21 PM
Subpoena request for Boeing video
Rich, the manual states that the request should go to the Division of Advice and the Special Litigation
Branch. Thanks, Dianne
This Region is currently investigating charge 19-CA-32431 filed by the IAM&AW against The Boeing
Company. As part of the investigation, the assigned Board Agent is seeking a video tape from the
Seattle Times newspaper. As CHM 11770.4 requires clearance from Headquarters prior to the
issuance of an investigative subpoena where the subpoena seeks evidence from a member of the
press to elicit testimony relating to information gained in his or her professional capacity or requiring
the production of materials secured as a result of news gathering activities, I am submitting this
request.
The Employer, a manufacturer of airplanes, announced in October 2009 that it would be placing a
second assembly line for the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina at its non-union facility instead of at its
union-represented facility in Everett, Washington where the first assembly line is located. The charge
alleges, among other items, that the Employer placed the second line in South Carolina in retaliation
for the unit employees engaging in strikes in 2008 and prior years.
In March 2010, a local reporter for the Seattle Times newspaper video-taped his interview with Jim
Albaugh, CEO of Boeing Commercial Airplanes. In that three-part interview, Mr. Albaugh states
Boeings reasons for placing the second line in South Carolina labor strife and increased wages.
Thus, the Region seeks possession of the video as it contains direct statements from a Boeing
official regarding Boeings reasons for placing the second line in S. Carolina.
We requested the video from the Seattle Times, but the following restrictions were placed on the use
of the video.
Video is provided to you as is for your personal use only and may not be copied, reproduced, distributed. broadcast, displayed, sold, licensed or otherwise
exploited for any other purpose whatsoever.
As such, we wish to subpoena the video tape in order to not be limited by the newspapers use
restrictions.
NLRB-FOIA-00012332
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
David Campbell
Boeing position statements
Dave,
Just for clarification, are you submitting a position statement on an inherently destructive theory? I
think you said that one is coming, I just wanted to check when you were sending it.
Thanks,
Dianne Todd
Board Agent
NLRB, Region 19
Ph:
206-220-6319
Fax: 206-220-6305
NLRB-FOIA-00012333
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
'David Campbell'
Carson Glickman-Flora; Jude Bryan
RE: Position Statements
The Director wished for me to inform you that any information submitted no later than Wednesday will
be considered prior to sending this case to the Division of Advice.
Thank you,
Dianne
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 10:07 AM
To: Todd, Dianne; Ahearn, Richard L.
Cc: Carson Glickman-Flora; Jude Bryan
Subject: Position Statements
Director Ahearn and Ms. Todd, Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss this case last Wednesday. Since then I
have been working on position statements regarding 8(C) issues, and a statement regarding other defenses Boeing is
apparently raising. I am hoping that these can be considered before this case goes to Advice. I can definitely provide
them by Wednesday, but will provide them sooner if needed. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Thanks, Dave
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
NLRB-FOIA-00012334
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Todd, Dianne
Sent:
To:
Pomerantz, Anne
Subject:
Revised Proposed Orders - Boeing
Attachments:
ADV.19-CA-32431.Boeing Proposed Order .doc
Anne,
Here are the revisions to the proposed orders.
Thanks
Dianne
NLRB-FOIA-00012335
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012336
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012337
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012338
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Pomerantz, Anne
Todd, Dianne
intro
Exemption 5
Anne P. Pomerantz
NLRB-FOIA-00012339
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Pomerantz, Anne
RE: intro
Thanks Anne Ill have it done in a second.
To: Todd, Dianne
Subject: intro
Exemption 5
Anne P. Pomerantz
NLRB-FOIA-00012340
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Thursday, November 18, 2010 1:04 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Boeing, 19-CA-32431 - follow-up request
Rich,
Just an FYI - Dave Campbell informed me that they are gathering new information that the facility in
S. Carolina will not be up and running for several years contrary to what has been indicated in the
papers. Although he hoped to get this information to us by Friday, it is taking longer than expected.
Thus, he will be providing this information as well as responses to the questions below early next
week.
Dianne
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 9:26 AM
To: Todd, Dianne
Subject: RE: Boeing, 19-CA-32431 - follow-up request
Diane, Per the phone message I left you we are assembling this information, as well as more information regarding South
Carolina, but need more time. Please call me on my cell if this is a problem. Thanks, Dave C
E.6 Privacy
Thanks, Dave
Sincerely,E...
David Campbell
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
Sent: Tue 11/16/2010 10:21 AM
To: David Campbell
Subject: Boeing, 19-CA-32431 - follow-up request
Dave,
Here is the list of information that we are requesting. Please let me know if you will not be able to
provide the information by Friday.
1. Historically, how many employees have there been in the unit at issue for the past 20-30
years?
2. How many employees total are there currently in the unit?
NLRB-FOIA-00012341
3. I understand from prior information submitted by the Union that there are currently 2610 unit
employees on the 787 assembly line in Everett. Does the Union have any further information
on how many employees would need to work on the current assembly line and on the surge
line once the lines are fully running?
4. How many of the current unit employees are in layoff status? How many of those would be
qualified to work on the assembly lines?
5. What is currently being done on the 787 assembly line?
6. Once the 787 assembly line and the surge lines are fully producing planes, what is the Unions
understanding as to how the lines would be staffed? Would employees be recalled from lay off
status? Would working unit employees be pulled from other areas? If so, what happens to the
area from which the employees were pulled? In essence, we are trying to understand how
employees can be moved around from one area to another if employees are already working
full-time. Is it possible or would Boeing have to hire new employees into the unit?
7. Has it occurred in the past where unit employees are pulled from one line to work on another?
How has this been done?
Thanks,
Dianne Todd
Board Agent
NLRB, Region 19
Ph:
206-220-6319
Fax: 206-220-6305
NLRB-FOIA-00012342
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent:
To:
Todd, Dianne
Subject:
Re: Boeing Document
Thx. If we decide to issue, let's see if U can get the actual e mails.
-------------------------Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
From: Todd, Dianne
Sent: Thu Jan 20 15:22:06 2011
Subject: Boeing Document
Rich,
I have looked through the file and do not believe that we have emails from 2008. As far as I can see,
we only have the emails and memos issued after the placement decision was made in October 2009.
Sorry.
Dianne
NLRB-FOIA-00012343
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
To: Ahearn, Richard L.; Pomerantz, Anne; Kobe, James; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne; Perkins, Victoria
206.220.6333; FAX 206. 220.6305
NLRB-FOIA-00012344
Advice Memorandum
DATE:
April 11, 2011
S.A.M.
TO:
Region 19
FROM:
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
line.
activity.
the agreement.

NLRB-FOIA-00012345
Case 19-CA-32431
- 2 -


FACTS

this Agreement[.]
ten employees.

Section 21.7
to arbitration. ...
NLRB-FOIA-00012346
Case 19-CA-32431
- 3 -


In

For example,




strike.

is a big deal[.]

NLRB-FOIA-00012347
Case 19-CA-32431
- 4 -
strike zone[.]


Kiga
above.
summit in Chicago.

IAM representatives

This was the first
ended.
1 In his
that the
occurred
1989 (48
2
Union had struck.

in 1948 (140 days), 1965 (19 days), 1977 (45 days),
NLRB-FOIA-00012348
Case 19-CA-32431
- 5 -
future strikes.

Doug Kight.
labor relations.

At a subsequent
supplier issues.

IAM

Boeing agreed to

customers.

During August,
NLRB-FOIA-00012349
Case 19-CA-32431
- 6 -

Meanwhile, the
assembly line.



The Union said

At the end of the


On September

But truthfully, it
NLRB-FOIA-00012350
Case 19-CA-32431
- 7 -

So weve become an
reliable supplier.
do.
weeks.

Carolina.
on October 1.

The Union

In

The Union
control.

When a Union
would get more.

NLRB-FOIA-00012351
Case 19-CA-32431
- 8 -

The Union

Also,
Carolina.
negotiations.


Conner


committee.
generation product.

Indeed, the

get back to him.
NLRB-FOIA-00012352
Case 19-CA-32431
- 9 -

We would obviously


...
And so some of the
Sound.

Our customers
couple of weeks.

Michalski explained
of conduct.
not respond.

He wanted

Keating did not
their State.

On
seven years.
NLRB-FOIA-00012353
Case 19-CA-32431
- 10 -

In a press

The managers were

line.


The
our customers eyes.


customers.
NLRB-FOIA-00012354
Case 19-CA-32431
- 11 -
Jim Albaugh.

The

history.
haul.
with the union.

of wages.
Charleston.

... And


NLRB-FOIA-00012355
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -

It was that
three years.
schedule.

Approximately 1,740
approximately 60%.
ACTION


Then, when Boeing

It also
election.
years.
this interview.
NLRB-FOIA-00012356
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
the Union.



Nor could Boeing
months.
problems.

activity.
rights.

NLRB-FOIA-00012357
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -

The Court


supplier strategy.9
plant.
employment.10
activity.12
Ibid.
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23, fn. 6 (1974).
See id. at 520.
10
See id. at 520-21.
11
See id. at 521.
12
See id. at 522.
NLRB-FOIA-00012358
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
date.13

Thus, telling

unlawful threats.17
13
14
th
mem. 50 F.3d 1037 (11
1997).
15
Aelco Corp., 326 NLRB 1262, 1265 (1998).

See also Dorsey
th
part 233 F.3d 831 (4
16
311 NLRB at 1200.

17
unionized).
18
Curwood, Inc., 339 NLRB 1137, 1137-38 (2003).
NLRB-FOIA-00012359
Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -

An employer may
to predicting

Some statements

Others were
testifies.21

And statements
(1)

During the call,
Sound.22
(2)

The
19
20
consequences).
21
22
23
See 215 NLRB 520, 522-23 (1974).
NLRB-FOIA-00012360
Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -
(3)
strikes.25
(4)
activity.26
II.

Instead of
24
to employees.
25

If
26
NLRB-FOIA-00012361
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -

Future work
desirable 787 jobs.

layoffs.
layoffs.
implemented.

In


its nonunion plant.

employees.30
27
28
Ibid.
29
th
Cir. 1990).
30
See id. at 319.
NLRB-FOIA-00012362
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
have performed.




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

See also
32
33
34
35
NLRB-FOIA-00012363
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
activity.36
strike.
strike.38

And the Board has
right to strike.
36
37
380 U.S. 278 (1965).
38
See id. at 283-85.
39
See id. at 284.
40
See ibid.
NLRB-FOIA-00012364
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
substantial.42


Boeing has

The substantial

In addition, Boeing
Washington.

In
striking.

th
41
See 295 NLRB 1095, 1095 (1989), enfd. 903 F.2d 396 (5
1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1024 (1991).
42
Cir.
See 295 NLRB at 1095-96.
43
NLRB-FOIA-00012365
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent.44
rights.45



the employees.46
employee rights.47
Paper.

Second, Boeings

position.
44
228, 231 (1963).

th
(4
Cir. 2000).
45
(D.C. Cir. 1997).
46
47

See also
NLRB-FOIA-00012366
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -


And the many
with the union.48


Section 8(a)(3).
48
49
NLRB-FOIA-00012367
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
subject.
A.

Alternatively, the

unit jobs.54
50
51
52
Ibid.
53
54
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00012368
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
bargaining unit.55
an expanded unit.56
jobs.57

Even

The work
unit employees.


In fact,
escalating.
55
56
rational of 353 NLRB 1198, 1219 (2009).
57
134 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 1998).

NLRB 202, fn. 1, 209 (1994).
58
59
NLRB-FOIA-00012369
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
decision; the Union

the strike and wage
2009.
Accordingly,
where to locate the
bargaining.
B.

The Board will

In interpreting

This
60
61
See id. at 812, fn. 19.
62
64
See 342 NLRB at 1260, 1261-62.
NLRB-FOIA-00012370
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
contract.66
agreement.




65
Id. at 1260.
66
Id. at 1262.
67
68
th
Cir.
NLRB-FOIA-00012371
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -

also lacks merit.


Absent
modifications.71
69

70
71
NLRB-FOIA-00012372
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
rights.72


At present,

Thus, the
72
the Act).
73
1093 (1996).
employees).
NLRB-FOIA-00012373
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.J.K.
ROFs - 9
74

The Region should

In the

This will
NLRB-FOIA-00012374
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Todd, Dianne
Sent:
Monday, May 09, 2011 2:37 PM
To:
Todd, Dianne
Subject:
RE: Boeing timeline
Rich,
Thanks
From: Todd, Dianne
Rich,
more.
Thanks,
Dianne
NLRB-FOIA-00012375
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Todd, Dianne
Sent:
Monday, May 09, 2011 2:37 PM
To:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
FW: Boeing timeline
Rich,
Thanks
From: Todd, Dianne
Rich,
more.
Thanks,
Dianne
NLRB-FOIA-00012376
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
Monday, October 18, 2010 1:29 PM
To:
Subject:
As work begins on 1,000th 767, what is the airplane's future? | KING5.com | Seattle
Business and Technology News
This article indicates that the surge line was not yet up and running as of Sept. 7, 2010.
http://www.king5.com/news/business/Boeing-starts-work-on-1000-767-102358284.html
NLRB-FOIA-00012377
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Boeing Co.
DOC001.PDF
NLRB-FOIA-00012378
NLRB-FOIA-00012379
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
Arguably Ex. 4
NLRB-FOIA-00012380
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Omberg, Bob
Boeing Co.
NLRB-FOIA-00012381
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Boeing
DOC001.PDF
I've just finished reviewing the new book Miriam found entitled "Turbulence: Boeing and the
State of American Workers and Managers."
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012382
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012383
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012384
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012385
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012386
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012387
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012388
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012389
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012390
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
W illen, Debra L
RE: IAM meeting with AGC, Jan. 19
Debra, Thx.

Rich
6, 7(C), &7(D)
Ahearn, Richard L.
To: Willen, Debra L
Cc: David Campbell
Ms. W illen,
next week.
Sincerely,
Seattle, W A 98119
206-285-2828
NLRB-FOIA-00012391
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam
RE:
Okay heres the new version.
I accepted 97% of your changes
Exemption 5
Ive responded to the comments where you were posing questions.
Exemption 5
Thanks.
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject:
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012392
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012393
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012394
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012395
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012396
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012397
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012398
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012399
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012400
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012401
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012402
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012403
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012404
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012405
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012406
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012407
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012408
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012409
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012410
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012411
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012412
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012413
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012414
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012415
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012416
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012417
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012418
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012419
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012420
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012421
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012422
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012423
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012424
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012425
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012426
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012427
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012428
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012429
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012430
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012431
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012432
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012433
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012434
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012435
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012436
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012437
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012438
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012439
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012440
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012441
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012442
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012443
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012444
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012445
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012446
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012447
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012448
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012449
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Szapiro, Miriam
Sent:
To:
Willen, Debra L
Subject:
draft
Attachments:
ADV 19-CA-32431 Response2 Boeing dlw2.doc
NLRB-FOIA-00012450
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012451
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012452
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012453
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012454
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012455
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012456
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012457
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012458
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012459
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012460
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012461
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012462
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012463
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012464
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012465
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012466
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012467
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012468
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012469
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012470
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012471
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012472
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012473
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012474
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012475
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012476
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012477
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012478
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012479
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012480
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012481
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012482
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012483
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012484
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012485
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012486
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012487
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012488
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012489
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012490
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012491
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012492
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012493
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012494
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012495
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012496
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012497
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012498
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012499
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012500
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012501
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012502
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012503
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012504
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012505
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012506
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012507
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012508
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: draft
Okay Ive accepted everything, deleted comments, and

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
NLRB-FOIA-00012509
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012510
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012511
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012512
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012513
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012514
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012515
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012516
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012517
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012518
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012519
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012520
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012521
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012522
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012523
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012524
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012525
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012526
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012527
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012528
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012529
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012530
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012531
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012532
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012533
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012534
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012535
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012536
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012537
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012538
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012539
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012540
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012541
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012542
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012543
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012544
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012545
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012546
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012547
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012548
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012549
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012550
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012551
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012552
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012553
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012554
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012555
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012556
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012557
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012558
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012559
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012560
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012561
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012562
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012563
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012564
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012565
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012566
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012567
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Kearney, Barry J.
Szapiro, Miriam
Boeing Co.
Barry Im attaching the revised Boeing draft and also leaving a hard copy in your in-box.
Incidentally, I just talked to David Campbell and apparently Boeing is reporting in the media again that the surge line is
temporary and will come down when South Carolina is up and running. He will send us the transcript of conference calls
and/or media articles. Isnt this inconsistent with what Conner said?
NLRB-FOIA-00012568
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Jude Bryan <bryan@workerlaw.com>
Sent:
To:
Willen, Debra L; Ahearn, Richard L.
Cc:
ccorson@iamaw.org; rmichalski@iamaw.org; Blondin Mark; tomw@iam751.org; David
Subject:
IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
Campbell; Kathy Barnard; Carson Glickman-Flora
Operator
Michael Mecham
W. McNerney
NLRB-FOIA-00012569
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
cc:
NLRB-FOIA-00012570
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Kearney, Barry J.
Cc:
'Miriam - Szapiro'
Subject:
Boeing
Attachments:
Sorry about the last e-mail. This e-mail actually has the draft attached.
NLRB-FOIA-00012571
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012572
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012573
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012574
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012575
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012576
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012577
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012578
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012579
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012580
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012581
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012582
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012583
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012584
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012585
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012586
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012587
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012588
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012589
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012590
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012591
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012592
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012593
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012594
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012595
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012596
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012597
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012598
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012599
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012600
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012601
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012602
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012603
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012604
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012605
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012606
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012607
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012608
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012609
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012610
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012611
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012612
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012613
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012614
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012615
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012616
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012617
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012618
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012619
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012620
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012621
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012622
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012623
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012624
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012625
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012626
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012627
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012628
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012629
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Katz,
Cc:
Ahearn, Richard L.; Willen, Debra L; 'Jude Bryan'
Subject:
FW: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
Judy; Omberg, Bob; Baniszewski, Joseph
Operator
Michael Mecham
W. McNerney
NLRB-FOIA-00012630
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
cc:
NLRB-FOIA-00012631
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Kearney, Barry J.
Boeing draft
attached
NLRB-FOIA-00012632
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012633
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012634
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012635
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012636
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012637
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012638
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012639
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012640
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012641
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012642
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012643
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012644
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012645
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012646
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012647
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012648
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012649
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012650
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012651
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012652
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012653
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012654
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012655
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012656
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012657
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012658
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012659
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012660
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012661
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012662
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012663
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012664
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012665
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012666
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012667
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012668
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012669
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012670
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012671
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012672
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012673
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012674
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012675
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012676
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012677
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012678
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012679
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012680
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012681
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012682
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012683
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012684
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012685
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012686
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012687
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012688
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012689
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012690
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012691
Microsoft Outlook
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam
Boeing
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Miriam
Just to get you up to speed on the Boeing draft. Barry requested minor changes in our draft
Exemption 5
He wanted me to clear up McNerneys and Albaughs titles. It seems McNearney is and remains CEO. Albaugh used to
be CEO of the military division and became CEO of the commercial planes division.
I made the changes and gave it back to him, and he then okayed it. New version of draft is attached.
Hope you are having a good weekend and not checking your e-mail.
--Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012692
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012693
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012694
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012695
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012696
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012697
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012698
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012699
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012700
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012701
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012702
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012703
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012704
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012705
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012706
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012707
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012708
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012709
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012710
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012711
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012712
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012713
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012714
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012715
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012716
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012717
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012718
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012719
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012720
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012721
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012722
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012723
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012724
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012725
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012726
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012727
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012728
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012729
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012730
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012731
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012732
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012733
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012734
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012735
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012736
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012737
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012738
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012739
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012740
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012741
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012742
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012743
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012744
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012745
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012746
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012747
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012748
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012749
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012750
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012751
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam; Kearney, Barry J.
Boeing
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012752
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Kearney, Barry J.
RE: Boeing
Subject: RE: Boeing
By all means
Subject: Boeing
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012753
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012754
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012755
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012756
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012757
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012758
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012759
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012760
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012761
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012762
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012763
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012764
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012765
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012766
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012767
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012768
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012769
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012770
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012771
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012772
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012773
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012774
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012775
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012776
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012777
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012778
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012779
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012780
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012781
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012782
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012783
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012784
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012785
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012786
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012787
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sophir, Jayme
Sent:
To:
Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject:
FW:
Subject: FW:
Subject:
billion.
South Carolina."
NLRB-FOIA-00012788
Thanks, Dave
Phone (206)285-2828: FAX (206)378-4132
or append.
NLRB-FOIA-00012789
Microsoft Outlook
Kearney, Barry J.
W illen, Debra L
FW : Complaint
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
I am going to try to meet this am depending on avaliability
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 2:19 PM
Subject: Complaint
Ex. 5 Deliberative
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-00012790
NLRB-FOIA-00012791
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012792
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012793
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012794
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012795
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012796
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012797
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012798
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012799
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012800
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012801
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012802
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012803
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012804
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012805
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012806
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012807
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012808
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012809
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Willen, Debra L
Sent:
To:
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject:
latest version of Boeing Complaint
Attachments:
Heres a new, marked-up version. Let me know if Ive got everything.
The Region will have to clean up the formatting I had problems with that.
NLRB-FOIA-00012810
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012811
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012812
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012813
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012814
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012815
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012816
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012817
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012818
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012819
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012820
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012821
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012822
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012823
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012824
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012825
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Farrell, Ellen
W illen, Debra L
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
FW : latest version of Boeing Complaint
Deb
Exemption 5
. But if Im wrong just reject my changes and youll be
back to your version.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: latest version of Boeing Complaint
NLRB-FOIA-00012826
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012827
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012828
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012829
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012830
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012831
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012832
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012833
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012834
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012835
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012836
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012837
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012838
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012839
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012840
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012841
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012842
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
Farrell, Ellen; W illen, Debra L
Kearney, Barry J.
RE: latest version of Boeing Complaint
Ex. 5 Deliberative
To: Willen, Debra L
Cc: Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: FW: latest version of Boeing Complaint
Deb
Exemption 5
. But if Im wrong just reject my changes and youll be
back to your version.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: latest version of Boeing Complaint
NLRB-FOIA-00012843
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Kearney, Barry J.
Boeing complaint
Okay I made Jaymes change but not Ellens, as instructed by Barry.
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012844
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012845
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012846
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012847
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012848
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012849
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012850
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012851
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012852
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012853
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012854
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012855
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012856
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012857
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012858
Ex. 5 Deliberative
NLRB-FOIA-00012859
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L; Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : any thoughts on a response?
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
fyi
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00012860
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
Nancys approach sounds reasonable to me.
Rich
To: Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: FW: any thoughts on a response?
fyi
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00012861
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
FW : any thoughts on a response?
fyi
Exemption 5
From: Garza, Jose
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
(202) 273-0222
NLRB-FOIA-00012862
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
draft response to state AGs
AG response.doc
NLRB-FOIA-00012863
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012864
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012865
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012866
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012867
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
W illen, Debra L; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Exemption 5
Second,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
NLRB-FOIA-00012868
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Farrell, Ellen; W illen, Debra L; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Deb
I agree with Ellens first and second points and deleted them from the response.( my edits are on your desk in hard copy)
To: Willen, Debra L; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: RE: draft response to state AGs
Exemption 5
Second,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
NLRB-FOIA-00012869
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; W illen, Debra L; Sophir, Jayme
Dodds, Amy L.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Internal deliberations
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012870
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Szapiro, Miriam; Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
Dodds, Amy L.
Fine by me too.
To: Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Willen, Debra L; Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00012871
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012872
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Sophir, Jayme; Farrell, Ellen; Szapiro, Miriam
I'm having difficulty here--
By clean draft , I take it that he means a draft that incorporates Ellen's revision of Jayme's change?
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
NLRB-FOIA-00012873
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012874
Employer Violated Section 8(a)(3) by Retaliating Against Unit Employees for Past Strikes and
Seeking to Chill Future Strike Activity
In Boeing Co., Case 19-CA-32431, Advice authorized a Section 8(a)(1) and (3) complaint against
the Employer based upon its decision to place a second assembly line for its 787 aircraft at a
nonunion facility in South Carolina rather than its existing facility in Everett, Washington.
Advice concluded that Boeing committed independent Section 8(a)(1) violations by repeatedly
stating, through high-level officials, that that its decision to place the second line elsewhere was
based on the units strike history.
As a remedy for these violations, Advice directed the Region
to seek, in addition to standard remedies, a notice reading by a high-level Boeing official,
preferably one of the officials who personally committed some of the violations, or a reading by a
Board agent in his presence.
Advice also concluded that Boeing violated Section 8(a)(3) by
deciding to locate the second line at a nonunion facility in retaliation for prior strikes and in order
to chill future strikes and by deciding to contract with independent suppliers rather than use unit
facilities to supply parts for the second line. Boeing asserted that it was not transferring unit
work, it was merely determining where to locate new work, and its decision to locate that
work in South Carolina would not adversely impact any current unit employees. However,
Advice found that although unit employees have not yet suffered any impact, Boeings decision
will direct work away from the unit employees with consequent adverse effects.
The Region will
also argue, in the alternative, that Boeings conduct -- its decision coupled with its officials
coercive statements -- was inherently destructive of employee rights. To remedy the Section
8(a)(3) violations, the Region will seek an order requiring Boeing to maintain the second line in
Washington. Finally, Advice dismissed Section 8(a)(5) allegations because the Union had
waived, through express contract language, it right to bargain about decisions to offload unit
work to a facility not covered by the agreement.
Senior Attorney Debra Willen and Supervisor Miriam Szapiro handled this case. You can find
this Advice memorandum in Archivalware and attached to an April 25 entry in the SAMs
Bulletin Board entitled ADV 11-14 Retaliatory Transfer of Work (Boeing).
NLRB-FOIA-00012875
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
Monday, May 16, 2011 9:43 AM
Dodds, Amy L.
Boeing Hot Topics
Hot Topics Boeing.doc
Hi Amy
Exemption 5
Anyway, feel free to edit ..
-- Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012876
Employer Violated Section 8(a)(3) by Retaliating Against Unit Employees for Past Strikes and
Seeking to Chill Future Strike Activity
In Boeing Co., Case 19-CA-32431, Advice authorized a Section 8(a)(1) and (3) complaint against
the Employer based upon its decision to place a second assembly line for its 787 aircraft at a
nonunion facility in South Carolina rather than its existing facility in Everett, Washington.
Advice concluded that Boeing committed independent Section 8(a)(1) violations by repeatedly
stating, through high-level officials, that that its decision to place the second line elsewhere was
based on the units strike history.
As a remedy for these violations, Advice directed the Region
to seek, in addition to standard remedies, a notice reading by a high-level Boeing official,
preferably one of the officials who personally committed some of the violations, or a reading by a
Board agent in his presence.
Advice also concluded that Boeing violated Section 8(a)(3) by
deciding to locate the second line at a nonunion facility in retaliation for prior strikes and in order
to chill future strikes and by deciding to contract with independent suppliers rather than use unit
facilities to supply parts for the second line. Boeing asserted that it was not transferring unit
work, it was merely determining where to locate new work, and its decision to locate that
work in South Carolina would not adversely impact any current unit employees. However,
Advice found that although unit employees have not yet suffered any impact, Boeings decision
will direct work away from the unit employees with consequent adverse effects.
The Region will
also argue, in the alternative, that Boeings conduct -- its decision coupled with its officials
coercive statements -- was inherently destructive of employee rights. To remedy the Section
8(a)(3) violations, the Region will seek an order requiring Boeing to maintain the second line in
Washington. Finally, Advice dismissed Section 8(a)(5) allegations because the Union had
waived, through express contract language, it right to bargain about decisions to offload unit
work to a facility not covered by the agreement.
Senior Attorney Debra Willen and Supervisor Miriam Szapiro handled this case. You can find
this Advice memorandum in Archivalware and attached to an April 25 entry in the SAMs
Bulletin Board entitled ADV 11-14 Retaliatory Transfer of Work (Boeing).
NLRB-FOIA-00012877
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
W olin, Michele
Boeing
Michelle Do you have Lafes response to the state attorney generals letter re Boeing?
To: Willen, Debra L
Cc: Psotka, Jonathan
Subject: RE: Deco-Akal - Boeing press release
Deb
I think it is in
But I also dont have the final. Michele W olin was
Exemption 5
collecting documents for a FOIA request so she may have it. If not, I would think the GCs office or Nancy Cleelands
office should have it.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Deco-Akal - Boeing press release
Ellen
Exemption 5
Any ideas?
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012878
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W olin, Michele
W illen, Debra L
RE: Boeing
No, I dont. If you get a copy, please let me know. FYI, Ill be leaving at 4:00 today.
Thanks,
Michele
To: Wolin, Michele
Subject: Boeing
Michelle Do you have Lafes response to the state attorney generals letter re Boeing?
To: Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE: Deco-Akal - Boeing press release
Deb
I think it is in
But I also dont have the final. Michele W olin was
Exemption 5
collecting documents for a FOIA request so she may have it. If not, I would think the GCs office or Nancy Cleelands
office should have it.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
To: Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Deco-Akal - Boeing press release
Ellen
Exemption 5
Any ideas?
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012879
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sophir, Jayme
W illen, Debra L
I think youre right. This is the last thing I have in my efiles. Lafe must have decided not to respond after all.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
NLRB-FOIA-00012880
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
. But, regardless of what theyre saying, Ellens
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
See my modification
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
From: Sophir, Jayme
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
Exemption 5
Cc: Dodds, Amy L.
do.
Thanks, Deb
NLRB-FOIA-00012881
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012882
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012883
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-00012884
ALANWILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL
April 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Solomon:
tomorrow.
NLRB-FOIA-00012885
April 27, 2011
Page 2
back to work.
Sincerely,
Alan Wilson
Attorney General
NLRB-FOIA-00012886
April 27, 2011
Page 3
Ken Cuccinelli
Attorney General
Jon C. Bruning
Attorney General
State of Nebraska
Greg Abbott
Attorney General
State of Texas
Samuel S. Olens
Attorney General
State of Georgia
E. Scott Pruitt
Attorney General
State of Oklahoma
Pam Bondi
Attorney General
State of Florida
Tom Horne
Attorney General
State of Arizona
Luther Strange
Attorney General
State of Alabama
NLRB-FOIA-00012887
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
W illen, Debra L; Psotka, Jonathan
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
Deco-Akal
Celeste tells me that the draft we prepared in response to the state AGs letter in Boeing
Exemption 5
was never sent.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
NLRB-FOIA-00012888
Microsoft Outlook
W illen, Debra L
W olin, Michele
From:
Sent:
To:
FYI
To: Willen, Debra L; Psotka, Jonathan
Subject: Deco-Akal
Celeste tells me that the draft we prepared in response to the state AGs letter in Boeing in which we said
Exemption 5
was never sent.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
NLRB-FOIA-00012889
P age 1 of2
W illen,D ebra L
Exemption 6
F rom
S en t: Thursday, M ay 05, 2011 8:55 A M
T o:
V V illen,D ebra L
W allS treet JournalM A Y 4, 2011
C ongress vs. the N LR B
T he labor board's B oeing ruling prom pts C ongress to protect right-to-w ork.
P resident O bam a's N ationalLabor R elations B oard has spent the year thum bing its nose at C ongress by
reinterpreting longstanding labor law on behalf of union friends. C ongress is finally fighting back.
T ennessee G O P S enator Lam ar A lexander along w ith S outh C arolina S enators Lindsey G raham and Jim D eM int
are this w eek introducing legislation to rein in the labor board's latest assault on business. T he beard's com plaint
against B oeing, filed last m onth, is the first shot in a new union w ar on federalright-to-w ork law , a policy shift that
is every bit as threatening as the drive to get rid of secret ballots in union elections.
B oeing decided 17 m onths ago to invest $2 billion building a new production plant for its 787 D ream liner in S outh
C arolina. It m ade the decision only after talks broke dow n w ith the InternationalA ssociation of M achinists and
A erospace W orkers, w hose m em bers w anted the w ork at a unionized plant in W ashington state. T he union's
m any strikes over the years have cost B oeing a bundle. S outh C arolina, like 21 other states, has a right-to-w ork
law , w hich forbids com pulsory unionism .
T he O bam a N LR B nonetheless chose to m ake B oeing a w hipping boy in a new offensive against right-to-w ork
states. It filed a com plaint dem anding that an adm inistrative law judge halt the S outh C arolina plant (set to open
in July), and force B oeing to m ove production to W ashington.
T his despite the fact that B oeing m ade clear this is a new production facility or that it has added 12,000 jobs in
W ashington since announcing the S outh C arolina m ove.
N o m atter. T he com plaint's realtarget is the federalright-to-w ork guarantee. A m ong the m ost celebrated
provisions of the 1947 T aft-H artley A ct is w hat's know n as 14(b) the section that allow s states to pass right-to-
w ork law s. T he B oeing com plaint guts that guarantee by effectively requiring com panies to continue
m anufacturing in union states or be found guilty of a rights violation. T his is a union dream com e true, on par
w ith "card check."
A s S enator A lexander tells us, this is a direct attack on a right-to-w ork law that w as "thoroughly debated" by
C ongress in 1947 and "rem ains clear today." T he A lexander-G raham -D eM int legislation w ould clarify the existing
provision, ensuring that state right-to-w ork law s cannot be pre-em pted by the N LR B or union contracts. W e're
assum ing the 11 D em ocratic S enators from right-to-w ork states w illstand up for their non-unionized w orkers if
S enator M ajority H arry R eid (from right-to-w ork N evada) allow s a vote.
B oeing w illfight the N LR B com plaint, though that m ight m ean a protracted court fight. It also m eans m ore
uncertainty for every business considering a m ove of future production facilities to a right-to-w ork state. M any of
them m ay S im ply relocate m anufacturing overseas.
T his is the latest gam bit from an A dm inistration that has been ram ping up its regulatory and enforcem ent pow ers
on behalf of special-interest allies such as unions. T he only check against this is C ongress, so w e're glad to see
M em bers speaking up.
5/9/2011
NLRB-FOIA-00012890
Microsoft Outlook
W illen, Debra L
W olin, Michele
From:
Sent:
To:
FYI
To: Willen, Debra L; Psotka, Jonathan
Subject: Deco-Akal
Celeste tells me that the draft we prepared in response to the state AGs letter in Boeing
Exemption 5
was never sent.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
202-273-3810
NLRB-FOIA-00012891

NLRB Production 11

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

NLRB Production 11

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Microsoft Outlook

Monday, April 18, 2011 3:44 PM

NLRB Director of Public Affairs

Monday, April 18, 2011 4:31 PM

Re: new draft

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Abruzzo, Jennifer

Sent: Mon Apr 18 16:16:20 2011

Subject: Re: new draft

Sorry, I'm on my BB, a few suggestions:

The paragraph starting with

In the paragraph starting with

Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

From: Cleeland, Nancy

Sent: Mon Apr 18 15:44:07 2011

Subject: new draft

NLRB Director of Public Affairs

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:15 AM

RE: new draft

Should we add also,

From: Cleeland, Nancy

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:44 PM

Subject: new draft

NLRB Director of Public Affairs

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:46 AM

RE: new draft

From: Mattina, Celeste J.

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:14 AM

Subject: RE: new draft

Should we add also,

From: Cleeland, Nancy

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:44 PM

Subject: new draft

NLRB Director of Public Affairs

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:21 AM

RE: new draft

Sorry to jump in after the fact.

What do you think,

From: Cleeland, Nancy

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:46 AM

Subject: RE: new draft

From: Mattina, Celeste J.

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:14 AM

Subject: RE: new draft

Should we add also,

From: Cleeland, Nancy

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 3:44 PM

Subject: new draft

NLRB Director of Public Affairs

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:30 AM

RE: new draft

fact sheet. Could someone forward to me? Thanks ________________________________________

From: Mattina, Celeste J.

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 10:20 AM

Cc: Ahearn, Richard L.

Subject: RE: new draft

Sorry to jump in after the fact.

What do you think,

From: Cleeland, Nancy

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:46 AM

Subject: RE: new draft

From: Mattina, Celeste J.

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 9:14 AM