Labor Board Deals Blow To Boeing Action May Force Company Back To Bargaining Table
Four Machinists union charges of bad-faith bargaining by The Boeing Co. in the days before a strike began were upheld Monday by the regional director of the National Labor Relations Board.
Terry Jensen, a spokesman for the board’s regional office, said the charges are being referred to a five-member panel in Washington, D.C., for consideration of court action against the world’s largest passenger jet manufacturer.
“We’re obviously thrilled that the board agreed with us that Boeing had bargained in bad faith,” said Alison Beck, counsel to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers in Washington, D.C.
In 16 years with the union, she said, “this is the first case of this magnitude that it has been this clear that it is the illegal conduct of the employer that has prevented any meaningful negotiations from taking place.”
Russ Young, a Boeing spokesman, said the company had no immediate comment on the findings.
The action has no immediate impact on the strike, which began Oct. 6, but could serve as an impetus for resuming negotiations.
Beck said she knew of about half a dozen cases in recent years in which “simply the authorization to seek an injunction has brought a settlement.”
Jensen said John D. Nelson, regional director of the board, would probably issue a formal complaint if the issues raised in the complaints cannot be resolved through negotiations.
No written decision had been issued.
“We will get with Boeing and with the union by phone and try and talk a settlement to these charges right now … somehow remedy what we think is wrong,” Jensen said.
The charges were filed Oct. 10, four days after the walkout and five days after about 26,000 union members voted 78 percent to reject Boeing’s final contract offer.
Key issues in the dispute are job security, medical benefits and pay. No talks have been held or scheduled since Oct. 2.
Only in about 2 percent of the unfair labor practice complaints received by the board is there consideration of a request by the panel for a court injunction against either side.
Jensen described the sustained union charges as follows:
Two involved “an inability or unwillingness of Boeing to either supply relevant information to the union … or at least to sit down and negotiate about what information would be forthcoming,” one each concerning medical coverage and subcontracting.
Another was “that Boeing, at the eleventh hour, dropped a very significantly different medical plan on the union. We just didn’t feel it was fair for Boeing to drop that bombshell at the last minute.”
The fourth is that Boeing wrongly demanded reductions in health benefits for retirees, an issue that cannot be forced to the table by either side without agreement of the other.
The board rejected union accusations that Boeing committed “surface bargaining,” essentially putting up a false appearance of negotiations, and “direct bargaining,” or trying to negotiate directly with employees rather than with the union officials they had chosen to represent them.
The decision Monday is much like a prosecutor deciding there is probable cause to bring charges in a criminal case, Jensen said.
Boeing previously submitted a response to the union’s charges and now has 14 days to respond to Nelson’s decision, he added.
Unless a settlement on conduct of future negotiations is reached in about a week, Nelson will issue a written complaint to be submitted in hearings before an administrative law judge, he said.
The board members probably will decide in about three weeks whether to ask that a U.S. District judge order Boeing to provide the union with information and drop the demand for retiree health benefit cuts.
Beck said she hoped the board would act sooner, “especially given that it is the unfair labor practices that have been prevented meaningful negotiations from taking place.”
Specifics of what would be sought in a court order remain undetermined. A federal court injunction would carry more weight and be subject to fewer appeals than an administrative order.
Unlike cases such as wrongful firing, which can be handled by job reinstatement with back pay and penalties, there are no remedies for the lost pay and economic impact on communities hit by a strike.
Of those represented by the Machinists, about 23,500 are in the Puget Sound area and another 1,200 in Gresham, Ore., both under union shop provisions. Of the 7,200 in Wichita, Kan., where mandatory membership is barred by state law, about 5,200 are union members.