Posted on 04/20/2011 12:01:45 PM PDT by jazusamo
Boeing illegally put its second 787 Dreamliner assembly line in South Carolina in retaliation for strikes in Washington and should be required to build the line in Washington, according to a National Labor Relations Board complaint filed Wednesday.
The board's acting general counsel filed the complaint in response to a charge that the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers union District 751, backed by the national union, filed on March 29, 2010. A board administrative law judge is scheduled to hear the case on June 14.
The complaint says Boeing executives "made coercive statements to its employees that it would remove or had removed work from the (union) because employees had struck" and threatened that future strikes would cost it more work.
"By opening the line in Charleston (S.C.), Boeing tried to intimidate our members with the idea that the company would take away their work unless they made concessions at the bargaining table," IAM District 751 President Tom Wroblewski said in a statement Wednesday. "But the law is clear: American workers have a right to pursue collective bargaining, and no company – not even Boeing – can threaten or punish them for exercising those rights."
Boeing issued a statement Wednesday saying it will "vigorously contest" the complaint.
"This claim is legally frivolous and represents a radical departure from both NLRB and Supreme Court precedent," Boeing Executive Vice President and General Counsel J. Michael Luttig said. "Boeing has every right under both federal law and its collective bargaining agreement to build additional U.S. production capacity outside of the Puget Sound region."
Boeing also criticized the timing of the complaint, noting it came 17 months after it announced it would put the line in South Caroline and as construction is nearly complete, with more than 1,000 new workers hired and assembly of the first airplane set to begin in July.
Boeing Ping!
At least Boeing has the moolah to take it to SCOTUS if need be.
And people wonder why companies go overseas to escape the unions, regulations and taxes. Mostly the BS from the government.
Since when does the right to collective bargaining turn into denying Boeing’s right to locate a plant at the most favorable location for profitable work?
TC
Gee I guess they can’t build their aircraft where they want now days!
We are now.... France.
Keep it up, unions - the next Boeing production line will be in Guangzhou.
Unions also have the right to pursue happiness.
So true and they will if they have to.
This is the textbook definition of economic fascism.
Where a company is privately owned, and the company owns the means of production, but the government controls the company’s production. The only exception to this definition would be if the company were producing the product under government contract, and that contract were to specify where the production were to take place (for instance, the military’s contracts for producing ammunition). To the best of my knowledge, the “Dreamliner” isn’t being produced under government contracts.
Mark
Maybe WA wants to be more like Detroit.
I'm amazed we have lost more manufacturing jobs. Maybe we should have.
Keep it up, unions - the next Boeing production line will be in Guangzhou
..........................................................
What he said.
They will never learn.They have gotten away with this crap for so long they have grown to think it is a right.
Last desperate act of defiance by the Goonions.
Obama/Holder will use this as an excuse to enrich their trail lawyer contributors.
coming soon to our country, the Anti Dog Eat Dog rule.
Federal attempt at establishing a precedence in denying corporations the right to relocate away from union dominated workforces.
A fish rots from the head down so this started at the White House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.