The N.L.R.B.’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said the labor board had decided to end the case after the machinists’ union — which originally asked for the case to be brought — urged the board on Thursday to withdraw it.
On Wednesday night, the union announced that 74 percent of its 31,000 Boeing workers in Washington State had voted to ratify a four-year contract extension that includes substantial raises, unusual job security provisions and a commitment by Boeing to expand aircraft production in the Puget Sound area.
Mr. Solomon, who has faced heavy criticism for bringing the case, said he was delighted that it was settled, noting that 90 percent of the cases the labor brings are settled.
“This is the outcome we always preferred, and that is typical for our agency,” Mr. Solomon said in a telephone conference call with reporters.
Mr. Solomon had filed the case against Boeing last April. Agreeing with the union’s position, he asserted that Boeing’s decision to build the $750 million plant in South Carolina constituted illegal retaliation against the union’s members in Washington for having engaged in their federally protected right to strike.
The case against Boeing enraged South Carolina officials, who saw it as an insulting blow to one of their greatest economic development successes. It also angered Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates, who asserted that federal regulators should not engage in heavy-handed regulation that tells companies where they can or cannot invest. Mitt Romney has called the labor board’s case a job killer, while Newt Gingrich has proposed cutting off the board’s funds.
The machinists’ local that asked the labor board to bring the case — Local 751 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, which represents Boeing workers in Washington State — was angry at Boeing’s decision to build the South Carolina plant because it feared that it would result in the loss of thousands of jobs in the Puget Sound area.
Local 751’s new contract went far to please and reassure the union and its members because Boeing pledged to build a new generation of its Boeing 737 passenger jet in the Puget Sound area, a move that will create several thousand more jobs there.
“The case was always about the loss of future jobs in the Seattle area,” Mr. Solomon said. “This agreement has resolved that issue. There is job security in the Washington area.”
Boeing had argued that it did not engage in any illegal retaliation against union members in Washington, and it further asserted that its new plant in North Charleston, S.C., which is producing 787 Dreamliner passenger jets, had in no way reduced employment in Washington State. Many business leaders and Republicans said it was outrageous for the labor board to seek to punish Boeing for deciding to build a new plant outside Washington State to avoid the continued labor strife there. The machinists’ union has engaged in five strikes against Boeing since 1977, including a 58-day strike in 2008 that cost the company $1.8 billion.
Boeing applauded the N.L.R.B.’s move. “We have maintained from the outset that the complaint was without merit and that the best course of action would be for it to be dropped,” said Tim Neal, a Boeing spokesman. “Today that happened. Boeing is grateful for the overwhelming support we received from across the country to vigorously contest this complaint and support the legitimate rights of businesses to make business decisions.”
But some business groups did not seem ready to turn the page on their fight with the labor board over this issue. Randel K. Johnson, senior vice president for labor at the United States Chamber of Commerce, welcomed the board’s decision to drop the case, but he added, “More needs to be done to prevent this outrageous overreach in the future.”
Calling the N.L.R.B. case “one of the great examples of pro-union activism and government overreach in history,” Mr. Johnson said, Congress should push ahead with legislation that bar cases, like the Boeing one, in which the board sought to prevent a company from locating a plant where it wanted.
In its complaint against Boeing, the labor board had asked a judge to order the company to move its three-plane-a-month South Carolina production line to Washington State.
The labor board’s case against Boeing so enraged Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator from South Carolina, that he threatened to block confirmation of any of President Obama’s future nominees to the N.L.R.B.
“This case was never about the union or the N.L.R.B. telling Boeing where it could put its plants,” Mr. Solomon said. “This was a question for us of retaliation, and that remains the law.” And, not backing down, he said that if the labor board were ever faced with a similar situation, “we might well issue a complaint.”
Mr. Solomon said it was always the board’s goal to promote — and settle matters by — collective bargaining, and he said that filing the case against Boeing helped lead to a settlement through collective bargaining.
A problem if Mr. Solomon had proceeded with the case was that the labor board will drop to two members from the current three, when the term of a Democratic recess appointee, Craig Becker, expires at the end of this month. The Supreme Court ruled last year that when the board, which has five seats, dwindles to fewer than three members, it no longer has the power to rule on any cases.
Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=f055f02c6f923fd980170c78b33ec3cb
Speak Your Mind
You must be logged in to post a comment.