The case involved the National Labour Relations Board (NLRB) which was the complainant, and Boeing, the defendant. It was filed by the NLRB after the management board of Boeing announced that it planned to relocate part of the company’s production line of the 787 Dreamliner from its current station in Washington DC to its new location in South Carolina. The new plant in South Carolina would not be under the union. This plan was to ensure that the company would produce a total of 10 Boeing 787 Dreamliners in a month with three being assembled at its South Carolina base while the rest were to be assembled at its current hub in Seattle. In its submissions, the NLRB argued that the decision by Boeing to relocate unionized workers to its new South Carolina plant was an act of discrimination aimed at punishing the union for its persistent and unwavering stand on labour laws. It also argued that the relocation plan named “Project Gemini” had far-reaching effects since it would create significant job losses for middle-level employees who were at that time unionized. Therefore, the board was seen to take the decision as an act of retaliation against the employees who had at an earlier time stalled the operations of the giant aircraft maker through a strike.
To support its facts, NLRB presented documents from the company which in its opinion confirmed its concerns to be valid. Boeing in its submission vehemently denied the allegations presented by NLRB stating that its decision to relocate part of its production work for the 787 was purely motivated by economic reasons and not as an act of retaliation against the worker’s union because of the strikes that had earlier been staged by its workers who were under the union. Boeing also advanced the view that the threat for job losses of its unionised employees was non-existent since the company had created more than 5000 unionised jobs in its Washington DC base after the opening of the South Carolina plant. The company further argued that the arguments made by the National Labour Regulation Board were blown out of context. Boeing asked the court to dismiss the case. However, a keen analysis of the documents presented in court by NLRB showed that labour issues were part of the considerations which motivated Boeing to move some of its workers to South Carolina. In addition, the plaintiff also confirmed that Boeing’s “Project Gemini” had a high-risk capacity and greater cost implications as compared to maintaining the whole production line of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner at its then Washington DC base. However, Boeing officials responded to this by arguing that the postulated financial gains were to be long-term rather than short-term.
The National Labour Regulation Board based its case upon Sections 8(a) (3) and 8(a) (5) of the National Labour Regulations Act. It argued that Boeing’s decision to relate its relocation to South Carolina to economic reasons was a clear violation of Section 8(a) (3) which prohibited any actions and decisions by an employer to implement any major entrepreneurial activities which by nature adversely and negatively affected unionised employees. Examples of entrepreneurial activities were linked to actions by Boeing to relocate its entire production lines and departments or subcontracting the same to other business entities. Basing its argument on these sections of the Act, NLRB argued that Boeing’s intentions were driven by discriminatory motives conjured to undermine and interfere with the worker’s union’s operations or create an escape route from its then prevailing union activities. On other hand, the case advanced by NRLB could further be supported by Section 8(a)(5) which termed it illegal for an employer to refuse to collectively bargain with the union representatives on matters that directly affected the union’s members. Boeing, on the other hand, drew its argument from the fact that the National Labour Regulation Act would not penalize an employer for taking decisions that had economic values and that its decision was not informed by any past experiences with the labour union. The company asserted that its motives were pure and not retaliatory and therefore, the case against them did not warrant any legal basis as per the National Labour Regulation Act.
As an administrative law Judge, I would find the case by the National Labour Regulation Board to have merit considering the facts presented and the arguments made by both parties. Boeing’s decision though taken on the basis of acquiring future economic gains cannot escape the fact that the company took into consideration its previous unpleasant experiences with the worker’s union. It cannot be true for the company to present the fact that its decision was purely economic. The documents submitted by the NLRB are also a further confirmation that the company was also using the plan as an attempt to undermine and restrict the activities of the labour union. In addition, the submissions made by the company do not show that the company had exhaustively engaged the union in collective bargaining with respect to this matter. Therefore, drawing my judgment from Sections 8(a) (3) and 8(a) (5), I would find the case of NLRB against Boeing to have legal merit. Boeing should therefore first engage the workers union in collective bargaining and address all the concerns of the union before embarking on this plan in order to make sure none of the parties is victimised by the other.