The GOP’s Job Outsourcers’ Bill of Rights: Facts on the Boeing Case

On April 20^th, the National Labor Relations Board General Counsel issued a complaint against the Boeing Corporation alleging that the company unlawfully retaliated against union workers when it decided to place the second line of production for an aircraft in South Carolina. The case has yet to be decided and is currently at trial before an administrative law judge that began on June 14^th. The GOP's Job Outsourcers' Bill of Rights would short-circuit the proceedings.

The Machinists union filed a charge alleging, among other things, that Boeing re-located a production line at a non-union facility in South Carolina in retaliation for previous and possible future strikes by its Machinist employees. Under the National Labor Relations Act, it is illegal to retaliate or discriminate against workers for engaging in protected activity, which includes striking. Republicans have relentlessly attacked the General Counsel for filing the case and have made misstatements of the relevant facts and law. Below are some facts on the case.

The Boeing case is about illegal retaliation against workers in Washington state by Boeing.

• It is alleged that Boeing is relocating its production line for the new 787 from Washington state to South Carolina because union workers in Washington state engaged in protected activity – namely, strikes.
• Federal labor law prohibits discrimination and retaliation based on protected activity.  Employers can locate work anywhere, but not when that decision is based on unlawful discrimination.   
• According to a Boeing newsletter, work being done in Washington state will be phased out as the work moves to South Carolina.
• Workers filed charges against Boeing to save their jobs from unlawful retaliation.

The Boeing case has not been decided

• It is currently being argued before an independent administrative law judge
• Career NLRB employees investigated the facts of the case.
• Charges were only filed after extensive efforts to settle the case out of court failed.

Companies can choose to locate a business anywhere it wants for nearly any reason; as long as those reasons are lawful.  

• For example, it is unlawful to move work elsewhere because a company does not like the racial makeup of the workforce. Since the passage of the NLRA in 1935, companies are prohibited from retaliating against workers for forming a union or engaging in other protected activity.
• The Supreme Court has said that an employer violates the NLRA by closing down part of a plant and transferring the work to another location if that decision was made in retaliation for protected labor activity. 

The NLRB has ordered businesses to restore work when it was shown that a company engaged in illegal behavior.  

• The power to stop illegal outsourcing is the NLRB’s most effective remedy to make workers whole.
• Other remedies under the law, such as back pay or giving workers first priority at the new worksite, are inadequate to protect workers’ jobs and their ability to engage in protected activities.  Back pay is not a sufficient deterrent – amounts that are earned by the aggrieved worker in the interim (or that should have been earned) are deducted from back pay.  And workers may not have the ability to move or move their families to a new worksite far away.