NLRB’s Controversial Boeing Complaint Withdrawn After Settlement

On December 9, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board approved the International Association of Machinists’ request to withdrawal the controversial Complaint issued against Boeing Company on April 20, 2011. The Union requested the NLRB to drop the unfair labor practice Complaint after union members ratified a new four-year collective bargaining agreement with Boeing and obtained commitments that the company will build a new line of 737 MAX jetliners in Washington State.

The controversial Complaint alleged that Boeing unlawfully established a second assembly line for its 787 Dreamliner aircraft, which was previously only assembled in Washington State, at a nonunion plant in South Carolina because union-represented workers in Washington had engaged in prior lawful strikes over contract disputes with the company. Boeing vigorously disputed these allegations.

The April 2011 Complaint drew national attention and criticism from the business community and Republican legislators, who described the Complaint as “nothing more than a shameless campaign to bully an American employer”. While an administrative law judge initially began a hearing on the Boeing complaint in June, witness testimony was never heard. As the NLRB process moved forward, legislators responded by proposing the Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act (H.R. 2587), which would amend the National Labor Relations Act by depriving the NLRB of power to order an employer:

to restore or reinstate any work, product, production line, or equipment, to rescind any relocation, transfer, subcontracting, outsourcing, or other change regarding the location, entity, or employer who shall be engaged in production or other business operations, or to require any employer to make an initial or additional investment at a particular plant, facility, or location.

The House of Representatives passed the bill 255-188 on a largely party-line vote in September, but the Senate has not yet taken any action on the measure.

The approval of the Union’s withdrawal request means that the merits of the underlying legal dispute will not have the opportunity to be considered or resolved by the NLRB. The NLRB is likely to look for another opportunity to bring a similar case before an Obama Board in order to further union interests in limiting an employer’s right to freely operate its business. Accordingly, employers should be cognizant of the NLRB’s current agenda when confronted with a decision to relocate work that will not affect work preservation of an existing bargaining unit.