Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 8:09 AM
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE:
NLRB-FOIA-U00000318
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 8:38 AM
Kearney, Barry J.
Re:
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00000319
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 3:31 PM
Cleeland, Nancy
RE: NLRB story
Wow!
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
--
John B. Judis
Senior Editor, The New Republic
Visiting Scholar, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
NLRB-FOIA-U00000320
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Liebman, W ilma B.
Thursday, May 05, 2011 8:03 AM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: NLRB story
Here it is
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
--
John B. Judis
Senior Editor, The New Republic
Visiting Scholar, The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
NLRB-FOIA-U00000326
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kearney, Barry J.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 9:35 AM
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
FW : Boeing - solomon letter
Solomon letter with attachment - May 3, 2011.pdf; ATT00001..htm
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00000346
NLRB-FOIA-U00000347
NLRB-FOIA-U00000348
NLRB-FOIA-U00000349
NLRB-FOIA-U00000350
NLRB-FOIA-U00000351
NLRB-FOIA-U00000352
NLRB-FOIA-U00000353
NLRB-FOIA-U00000354
NLRB-FOIA-U00000355
NLRB-FOIA-U00000356
Page 1 of 1
NLRB-FOIA-U00000357
file://C:\IGCShared\in\23\1.htm
8/29/2011
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Kearney, Barry J.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 9:35 AM
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
FW :
Solomon letter with attachment - May 3, 2011.pdf; ATT00001..htm
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00000495
NLRB-FOIA-U00000496
NLRB-FOIA-U00000497
NLRB-FOIA-U00000498
NLRB-FOIA-U00000499
NLRB-FOIA-U00000500
NLRB-FOIA-U00000501
NLRB-FOIA-U00000502
NLRB-FOIA-U00000503
NLRB-FOIA-U00000504
NLRB-FOIA-U00000505
Page 1 of 1
NLRB-FOIA-U00000506
file://C:\IGCShared\in\23\1.htm
8/29/2011
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 11:25 AM
Kearney, Barry J.; Ahearn, Richard L.
ap questions
Hello there,
Lafe suggested I contact both of you with these questions
Sam Hananel of the AP is writing this morning about the Boeing letter and wants to know:
Is this unusual? (for a respondent to write a letter like this? Has Boeing filed a formal response to the complaint? If not yet, when is it due?
And will we have any response to this letter?
Thanks for any help you can provide.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00000593
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00000663
NLRB-FOIA-U00000664
NLRB-FOIA-U00000665
NLRB-FOIA-U00000666
NLRB-FOIA-U00000667
NLRB-FOIA-U00000668
NLRB-FOIA-U00000669
NLRB-FOIA-U00000670
NLRB-FOIA-U00000671
NLRB-FOIA-U00000672
NLRB-FOIA-U00000673
Page 1 of 1
NLRB-FOIA-U00000674
file://C:\IGCShared\in\23\1.htm
8/29/2011
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 9:30 AM
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE:
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00000923
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 3:51 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
FW : Boeing - letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits
Exemption 5
More details
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
The 8 states have replied to the complaint through a letter? To whom? Do we have a copy?
Please see below; Now there are 9 states going after us. Bloomberg asks if we have a response.
NLRB-FOIA-U00000997
Columbia - South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and eight (8) other state attorneys general have
replied to a complaint filed against Boeing Corporation by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The
complaint charges Boeing with the commission of an unfair labor practice, but appears to do so without legal
and factual foundation. The board claims Boeing is prohibited from expanding production of its planes beyond
the reach of unions currently associated with its workers in Washington State. South Carolina is a staunch right
to work state. In reality, Boeing expanded its production of 787 Dreamliners to South Carolina last year in
response to increase in demand. What the NLRB complaint fails to mention is the increased demand for the
planes prompted the creation of over 2,000 new jobs in Washington State first, and continued demand
subsequently required an expansion facility in South Carolina. Recognizing the dangerous precedent this
aggressive action could set against the right to work, job creation, and economic growth in many states, the
attorneys general wrote:
"This complaint represents an assault upon the constitutional right of free speech, and the ability of our states
to create jobs and recruit industry. Your ill-conceived retaliatory action seeks to destroy our citizens' right to
work. It is South Carolina and Boeing today, but will be any of our states, with our right to work guarantees,
tomorrow."
"...this tenuous complaint will reverberate throughout union and non-union states alike, as international
companies will question the wisdom of locating in a country where the federal government interferes in industry
without cause or justification."
"Our states are struggling to emerge from one of the worst economic collapses since the Depression. Your
complaint further impairs an economic recovery. Intrusion by the federal bureaucracy on behalf of unions will
not create a single new job or put one unemployed person back to work."
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00000998
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
W ednesday, April 27, 2011 8:22 AM
NLRB Attorney in Advice W illen, Debra L
RE:
Hahah cool
From: NLRB Attorney in Advice Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:21 AM
To: Szapiro, Miriam; Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE:
Thanks. I think hes pretty special, but he fancies himself just an ordinary guy.
Willen, Debra L
Subject: RE:
Yay! I always liked your Dad (tho based on your prior descriptions, Im not sure if he qualifies as an everyman. And I
mean that in the best possible way).
From:
From: To:
Exemption 6 - Privacy
NLRB Attorney in Advice
-----Original Message-----
From: To:
Exemption 6 Privacy
NLRB Attorney in Advice
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00001039
Recipient
Read
NLRB-FOIA-U00001040
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00001051
NLRB-FOIA-U00001052
NLRB-FOIA-U00001053
NLRB-FOIA-U00001054
NLRB-FOIA-U00001055
NLRB-FOIA-U00001056
NLRB-FOIA-U00001057
NLRB-FOIA-U00001058
NLRB-FOIA-U00001059
NLRB-FOIA-U00001060
NLRB-FOIA-U00001061
Page 1 of 1
NLRB-FOIA-U00001062
file://C:\IGCShared\in\23\1.htm
8/29/2011
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
There were very few new angles to the Boeing case today, notwithstanding Grahams floor speech this morning.
The afternoon actually saw more traffic on the Reuters Twitter case than Boeing. A Littler blog lays out what Philip
Gordon, the author, believes are the basic parameters were using regarding social media and protected activity.
It also claims that we are collecting cases with the intention of revisiting Register Guard.
http://privacyblog.littler.com/2011/05/articles/labor-relations/the-latest-from-the-nlrb-on-social-
media/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+WorkplacePrivacyCounsel+(Workpla
ce+Privacy+Counsel)&utm_content=Google+Reader
On Boeing, there was little new, mostly a rehash of the arguments already made. The letter from Boeing has not
yet made it to any of the social media channels. The letter from the HELP Republicans made the rounds a bit:
http://help.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=0a2629be-691e-4ed7-8dc9-2f2b9a632641&groups=Ranking
The SC Attorney General went on Fox Business News to discuss Boeing. No new arguments:
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4674218/south-carolina-and-boeing-tee-off-on-nlrb/?playlist_id=87081
Tony Wagner
New Media Specialist | Office of Public Affairs
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
1099 14th Street NW, Suite 11550 | Washington, DC 20570
anthony.wagner@nlrb.gov | 202-273-0187 | cell: 202-375-9791
NLRB-FOIA-U00001065
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 4:01 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.; Cleeland, Nancy
RE: letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits
BTW, I am sending my dead blackberry to Al Turner today; if anyone needs to reach me over the weekend, best to try:
Exemption 6
Rich
or
Exemption 5
More details
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
The 8 states have replied to the complaint through a letter? To whom? Do we have a copy?
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00001077
Please see below; Now there are 9 states going after us. Bloomberg asks if we have a response.
Columbia - South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and eight (8) other state attorneys general have
replied to a complaint filed against Boeing Corporation by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The
complaint charges Boeing with the commission of an unfair labor practice, but appears to do so without legal
and factual foundation. The board claims Boeing is prohibited from expanding production of its planes beyond
the reach of unions currently associated with its workers in Washington State. South Carolina is a staunch right
to work state. In reality, Boeing expanded its production of 787 Dreamliners to South Carolina last year in
response to increase in demand. What the NLRB complaint fails to mention is the increased demand for the
planes prompted the creation of over 2,000 new jobs in Washington State first, and continued demand
subsequently required an expansion facility in South Carolina. Recognizing the dangerous precedent this
aggressive action could set against the right to work, job creation, and economic growth in many states, the
attorneys general wrote:
"This complaint represents an assault upon the constitutional right of free speech, and the ability of our states
to create jobs and recruit industry. Your ill-conceived retaliatory action seeks to destroy our citizens' right to
work. It is South Carolina and Boeing today, but will be any of our states, with our right to work guarantees,
tomorrow."
"...this tenuous complaint will reverberate throughout union and non-union states alike, as international
companies will question the wisdom of locating in a country where the federal government interferes in industry
without cause or justification."
"Our states are struggling to emerge from one of the worst economic collapses since the Depression. Your
complaint further impairs an economic recovery. Intrusion by the federal bureaucracy on behalf of unions will
not create a single new job or put one unemployed person back to work."
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00001078
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001079
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Tuesday, May 24, 2011 8:00 AM
W olin, Michele
FW : letter from South Carolina and 8 other state ag's about lawsuits
Exemption 5
More details
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
The 8 states have replied to the complaint through a letter? To whom? Do we have a copy?
NLRB-FOIA-U00001082
Please see below; Now there are 9 states going after us. Bloomberg asks if we have a response.
Columbia - South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and eight (8) other state attorneys general have
replied to a complaint filed against Boeing Corporation by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The
complaint charges Boeing with the commission of an unfair labor practice, but appears to do so without legal
and factual foundation. The board claims Boeing is prohibited from expanding production of its planes beyond
the reach of unions currently associated with its workers in Washington State. South Carolina is a staunch right
to work state. In reality, Boeing expanded its production of 787 Dreamliners to South Carolina last year in
response to increase in demand. What the NLRB complaint fails to mention is the increased demand for the
planes prompted the creation of over 2,000 new jobs in Washington State first, and continued demand
subsequently required an expansion facility in South Carolina. Recognizing the dangerous precedent this
aggressive action could set against the right to work, job creation, and economic growth in many states, the
attorneys general wrote:
"This complaint represents an assault upon the constitutional right of free speech, and the ability of our states
to create jobs and recruit industry. Your ill-conceived retaliatory action seeks to destroy our citizens' right to
work. It is South Carolina and Boeing today, but will be any of our states, with our right to work guarantees,
tomorrow."
"...this tenuous complaint will reverberate throughout union and non-union states alike, as international
companies will question the wisdom of locating in a country where the federal government interferes in industry
without cause or justification."
"Our states are struggling to emerge from one of the worst economic collapses since the Depression. Your
complaint further impairs an economic recovery. Intrusion by the federal bureaucracy on behalf of unions will
not create a single new job or put one unemployed person back to work."
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001083
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:10 AM
Ahearn, Richard L.
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
Cant wait to hear your perspectives on the meeting, so sorry i missed it. busy here you a call at some point next week.
________________________________________
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:56 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject:
Non-Responsive
probably should have asked to be conferenced in to listen to the discussion, but we have been
Non-Responsive
I will give
Non-Responsive
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
________________________________
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00001218
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00001219
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, May 20, 2011 10:18 AM
NLRB Board Agent in Seattle Re: Did you catch CNNs Boeing story last night?
Its been fascinating. I think everyone should do this. So many pieces have fallen into place. Ive been working hard and
hope to leave a good impression of Region 19.
Subject: Re: Did you catch CNNs Boeing story last night?
From:
As soon as I introduce myself to someone at Hdqtrs and explain Im on exchange from the Seattle Region, he/she
inevitably mentions this case. . . . .
I have been telling people that Im hiding in DC because its the last place anyone will look
NLRB-FOIA-U00001291
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Sunday, May 22, 2011 11:52 PM
Finch, Peter G.
Re: Gov. Gregoire
Right on!
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Exemption 5
________________________________________
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 9:28 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise; Finch, Peter G.; Harvey, Rachel
Subject: Gov. Gregoire
News
1 new result for National labor relations board
________________________________
Tip: Use quotes ("like this") around a set of words in your query to match them exactly.
Learn
more<http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=136861&hl=en&source=alertsm
ail&cd=We-Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE>.
Remove<http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&s=AB2Xq4ixgae4U9XJPW
N_8lOOaVEEbn_MHk9Cwtg&cd=We-Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> this alert.
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00001299
Create<http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> another alert.
Manage<http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> your alerts.
NLRB-FOIA-U00001300
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:09 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; W agner,
Anthony R.
RE: time to decide
Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
NLRB-FOIA-U00001393
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001394
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:10 PM
Cleeland, Nancy
Re: time to decide
Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
NLRB-FOIA-U00001395
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001396
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:20 PM
Cleeland, Nancy
Re: time to decide
Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
NLRB-FOIA-U00001397
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001398
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:24 PM
Kearney, Barry J.
Re: time to decide
Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00001399
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001400
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Farrell, Ellen
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:28 PM
Cleeland, Nancy
Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: Boeing
ADV.19-CA-32431.Response2.Boeing.dlw.doc; ADV.19-CA-32431.factsheet.Boeing.dlw.doc
Nancy
Attached are the memo, which issued yesterday, and the fact sheet.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Ellen, W ould you please send electronically to Nancy the Boeing Advice memo and fact sheet?
Nancy, W e anticipate that Region 19 will issue complaint next week. We can talk about it, Thanks, Lafe
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00001402
Advice Memorandum
DATE:
S.A.M.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
524-8307-1600
524-8307-5300
530-6050-0825-3300
530-6067-4011-4200
530-6067-4011-4600
530-6067-4011-7700
530-8054-7000
775-8731
NLRB-FOIA-U00001403
Case 19-CA-32431
- 2 -
FACTS
NLRB-FOIA-U00001404
Case 19-CA-32431
- 3 -
NLRB-FOIA-U00001405
Case 19-CA-32431
- 4 -
NLRB-FOIA-U00001406
Case 19-CA-32431
- 5 -
NLRB-FOIA-U00001407
Case 19-CA-32431
- 6 -
without intermediaries.3
Boeing also issued a FAQ document
to the employees stating that the mass layoffs that took place
at the Vought plant in late 2008 were due to the unique
situation created by the Everett strike. Meanwhile, the
South Carolina press was reporting that a decertification
decision could influence where Boeing located the second 787
assembly line. For example, The Post and the Courier reported
that South Carolinas low unionization rate is viewed as an
advantage in the 787 chase[.] An article in the Charleston
Business Journal asserted that Charleston might be a better
choice in the event of decertification because of its
potentially tamer work force instead of the Washington
workers with a history of walk[ing] off the job.
On August 26, Boeing e-mailed its managers and human
resource professionals that it had notified South Carolina
that it intended to file permits for the construction of a
second 787 line but that it had not yet made a decision as to
where to locate the second line. The following day, Boeing
and Union officials met in Portland to discuss the prospect of
a long-term agreement. Carson informed the Union that the
only way Boeing would place the second line in Washington was
if the Union agreed to a twenty-year no-strike agreement.
Boeing suggested a series of three-year agreements with an
overarching twenty-year no-strike pledge until 2032 and
binding interest arbitration if no agreement was reached at
the end of each of the three-year contracts. The Union said
that this was not possible, but the Union would consider a
longer agreement than the current four-year contract in return
for some sort of neutrality agreement. At the end of the
meeting, the parties agreed to schedule negotiations for a
long-term agreement.
Meanwhile, the decertification election in South Carolina
was scheduled for September 10. In reporting on Boeings
permit filings in South Carolina, the Puget Sound Business
Journal characterized this vote as [a] wild card in Boeings
decision about where to locate the second line. On September
2, Kight presented an hour-long video on Boeings website
(later quoted in a September 29 article in the Seattle Times).
In regard to the second line, he stated:
What do you do with the 787 second line so that we can
build up to rate and meet our commitment to customers?
... Theres a lot of issues to look at, a lot being
studied, no decision has been made. But truthfully, it
is very clear that this triennial disruption, our
3
The
NLRB-FOIA-U00001408
Case 19-CA-32431
- 7 -
NLRB-FOIA-U00001409
Case 19-CA-32431
- 8 -
NLRB-FOIA-U00001410
Case 19-CA-32431
- 9 -
NLRB-FOIA-U00001411
Case 19-CA-32431
- 10 -
NLRB-FOIA-U00001412
Case 19-CA-32431
- 11 -
The issue last fall was really about, you know, how
we could ensure production stability and how we
could ensure that we were competitive over the long
haul. And we had some very productive discussions
with the union. And unfortunately, we just didnt
come to an agreement where we felt we could ensure
production stability. And read [sic] that is [sic]
getting away from the frequent strikes that we were
having and also could we stop the rate of escalation
of wages. And we just could not get to a place
where we both felt it was a win for both ourselves
and the union so we made the decision to go to
Charleston.
[W]eve had strikes three out of the last four times
weve had a labor negotiation with the IAM. ... And
weve got to get to a position where we can ensure
our customers that every three years theyre not
going to have a protracted shutdown.
It was about ensuring to our customers that when we
commit to deliver airplanes on certain dates that we
actually do deliver. And we have lost our
customers have lost confidence in our ability to do
that, because of the strikes.
4
Once
NLRB-FOIA-U00001413
Case 19-CA-32431
- 12 -
ACTION
NLRB-FOIA-U00001414
Case 19-CA-32431
- 13 -
NLRB-FOIA-U00001415
Case 19-CA-32431
- 14 -
5
See
6
Ibid.
7
Id. 8
See 9
See 10
See 11
See 12
See
NLRB-FOIA-U00001416
Case 19-CA-32431
- 15 -
13
See
14
See,
15
Aelco
16
311
17
See,
18
Curwood,
NLRB-FOIA-U00001417
Case 19-CA-32431
- 16 -
19
See
20
E.g.,
21
Cf.
22
These 23
See
NLRB-FOIA-U00001418
Case 19-CA-32431
- 17 -
removed jobs from Puget Sound because employees had struck and
that they would lose work if they struck again.24
(3) In articles that appeared in the Seattle Times and
the Puget Sound Business Journal on December 7 and 8
respectively, Boeing officials attributed the plan to use a
dual-sourcing system and contract separate suppliers for the
South Carolina line to past strikes and implicitly threatened
the loss of future work opportunities in the event of future
strikes.25
(4) In a video-taped interview on March 2, Boeing
Commercial Airplanes CEO Albaugh expressly attributed the
Employers decision to locate the second line in South
Carolina to employee strikes and threatened the loss of future
work opportunities in retaliation for such protected
activity.26
The above statements, disseminated through various
channels to unionized and nonunionized employees nationwide,
drove home the message: union activity could cost them their
jobs, while a decision to reject union representation could
bring those jobs to their communities.
24
The
25
The
26
Vice
NLRB-FOIA-U00001419
Case 19-CA-32431
- 18 -
27
See
28
Ibid.
29
See
30
See
NLRB-FOIA-U00001420
Case 19-CA-32431
- 19 -
32
Capehorn 33
See
31
See
35
See
34
See
NLRB-FOIA-U00001421
Case 19-CA-32431
- 20 -
36
Ibid. 37
380 38
See 39
See 40
See
(citation omitted).
NLRB-FOIA-U00001422
Case 19-CA-32431
- 21 -
future.41
Instead, the Board found that disfavoring employees
who were likely to engage in protected union activities was
proscribed by Section 8(a)(3) and the employers business
justification - to avoid investing money in employees who
were going to cease work later -- was neither legitimate nor
substantial.42
Boeings concession that choosing South Carolina will
result in duplication and economic inefficiencies further
demonstrates that Boeings actions were retaliatory and not a
legitimate business decision. In addition, Commercial
Airplanes CEO Albaugh conceded that going to South Carolina,
a green field site, involves significant risks. Boeing has
the capacity, equipment, and trained workforce to handle the
second assembly line in the Puget Sound area. The substantial
investment required to build and equip the South Carolina
facility therefore will be duplicative. In addition, Boeing
will have to recruit and train a new workforce in South
Carolina, while ultimately laying off experienced employees in
Washington. Exaggerating the disruptive effects of prior
strikes, Boeing maintains that the inefficiencies associated
with moving work to South Carolina will be counterbalanced by
the avoidance of strike disruptions in the future. However,
there are other nonretaliatory and less costly means of
dealing with the potential of relatively short disruptions
caused by employee strikes, such as concluding negotiations
with the Union for a long-term no-strike agreement. In
addition, Boeings claim that it took this action to avoid
strike disruptions is belied by Boeings rejection of the
Unions efforts to negotiate a long-term no strike agreement.
Accordingly, the Region should proceed on the theory that
Boeing violated Section 8(a)(3) by retaliating against the
unit employees for engaging in the protected activity of
striking.
We also conclude that Boeings conduct was inherently
destructive of employee interests.43
Conduct is inherently
destructive when it carries with it unavoidable
consequences which the employer not only foresaw but which he
must have intended and thus bears its own indicia of
41
See
th
Cir.
42
See 43
See
NLRB-FOIA-U00001423
Case 19-CA-32431
- 22 -
intent.44
In International Paper Co., the Board set forth
four fundamental guiding principles for determining whether
employer conduct is inherently destructive of employee
rights.45
First, the Board looks to the severity of the harm
to employees Section 7 rights. Second, the Board considers
the temporal impact of the employers conduct, i.e. whether
the conduct merely influences the outcome of a particular
dispute or whether it has far reaching effects which would
hinder future bargaining. Third, the Board distinguishes
between conduct intended to support an employers bargaining
position as opposed to conduct demonstrating hostility to the
process of collective bargaining. And finally, the Board
assesses whether the employees conduct discourages collective
bargaining by making it seem a futile exercise in the eyes of
the employees.46
Even if the employees conduct is
inherently destructive, the Board weighs the employers
asserted business justification against the invasion of
employee rights.47
Boeings actions were inherently destructive of employee
rights under the four principles articulated in International
Paper. First, the harm to employees Section 7 rights was
severe; employees got the distinct message that if they engage
in another strike, unit work will be moved to a nonunion
facility and unit jobs will be lost. Second, Boeings
decision was designed to have far-reaching effects and not
just to influence the outcome of a particular dispute, namely,
to take away employee support for the Unions most effective
economic weapon, and for the Union itself, and thereby hinder
any future collective bargaining. Third, Boeings conduct
demonstrated hostility to the very process of collective
bargaining and not just to support a specific bargaining
position. Finally, bargaining was made to seem a futile
44
Ibid.,
45
See
46
Id. 47
Id.
NLRB-FOIA-U00001424
Case 19-CA-32431
- 23 -
48
See 49
See
NLRB-FOIA-U00001425
Case 19-CA-32431
- 24 -
50
Provena 51
303
NLRB 386, 391 (1991), enfd. sub nom. Food & Commercial
Workers Local 150-A v. NLRB, 1 F.3d 24 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
52
Ibid.
53
See,
54
See,
NLRB-FOIA-U00001426
Case 19-CA-32431
- 25 -
55
See
56
See
57
See
58
See 59
See
NLRB-FOIA-U00001427
Case 19-CA-32431
- 26 -
decision; the Union the strike and wage 2009. Accordingly, where to locate the bargaining.
B.
60
See 61
See 62
See
63
See,
64
See
NLRB-FOIA-U00001428
Case 19-CA-32431
- 27 -
subject to arbitration.65
Although another contractual
provision required the employer to provide 60 days notice and
discuss with the union any subcontracting decision that
would cause unit employees to be laid off, the words discuss
and bargain were found not synonymous in the parties
contract.66
In this case, Section 21.7 of the parties agreement
specifically, precisely, and plainly67
granted Boeing the
right to offload work to a facility not covered by the
agreement. As in Ingham Regional Medical Center, the other
provisions of Section 21.7 that required Boeing to provide the
Union notice and an opportunity to review and recommend
alternatives did not require the Employer to bargain over an
offloading decision.
The Union does not dispute that Section 21.7 contains a
waiver but asserts instead that the Employer may not take
advantage of the waiver. Specifically, the Union maintains
that a contractual waiver cannot be applied to a decision that
is unlawfully motivated. But there is no authority for the
proposition that an unlawful motive negates a contractual
waiver; rather, the cases on which the Region and Union rely
hold that a contractual waiver is no defense to a Section
8(a)(3) violation.68
The Unions other arguments against application of the
waiver are also unavailing. Thus, the Union asserts that the
contractual waiver does not apply because the parties entered
negotiations for a new contract. However, during those mid-
term negotiations, their existing contract -- including
Section 21.7 -- continued in effect. The Union also contends
65
Id. 66
Id. 67
See 68
See
at 1260.
at 1262.
Allison Corp., 330 NLRB at 1365.
Reno Hilton, 326 NLRB 1421, 1430 (1998), enfd. 196 F.3d
1275 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (merely because the Respondent has
negotiated the unfettered right in a collective-bargaining
agreement to contract out work at any time, such right ...
does not unfetter and insulate the Respondent from the
sanctions of the Act prohibiting it from discriminating); RGC
th
(USA) Mineral Sands, Inc. v. NLRB, 281 F.3d 442, 450 (4
Cir.
2002) (enforcing Board decision finding Section 8(a)(3)
violation on grounds that, even if contract authorized
employer to unilaterally alter shift assignments, an employer
cannot exercise contractual rights to punish employees for
protected activity).
NLRB-FOIA-U00001429
Case 19-CA-32431
- 28 -
70
See 69
Thus,
71
See
NLRB-FOIA-U00001430
Case 19-CA-32431
- 29 -
73
Three
72
See,
NLRB-FOIA-U00001431
Case 19-CA-32431
- 30 -
B.J.K.
ROFs - 9
H:ADV.19-CA-32431.Response2.Boeing.dlw
74
At
NLRB-FOIA-U00001432
NLRB-FOIA-U00001433
- 2 -
Carolina.
NLRB-FOIA-U00001434
- 3 -
NLRB-FOIA-U00001435
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: time to decide
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001439
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:05 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: time to decide
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00001440
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001441
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:09 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; W agner,
Anthony R.
RE: time to decide
Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
NLRB-FOIA-U00001442
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001443
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:12 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.;
W agner, Anthony R.
RE: time to decide
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
NLRB-FOIA-U00001444
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001445
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Finch, Peter G.
Sunday, May 22, 2011 7:06 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Gov. Gregoire
Exemption 5
________________________________________
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 9:28 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise; Finch, Peter G.; Harvey, Rachel
Subject: Gov. Gregoire
News
1 new result for National labor relations board
________________________________
Tip: Use quotes ("like this") around a set of words in your query to match them exactly.
Learn
more<http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=136861&hl=en&source=alertsm
ail&cd=We-Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE>.
Remove<http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&s=AB2Xq4ixgae4U9XJPW
N_8lOOaVEEbn_MHk9Cwtg&cd=We-Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> this alert.
Create<http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> another alert.
Manage<http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> your alerts.
NLRB-FOIA-U00001451
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Sunday, May 22, 2011 11:52 PM
Finch, Peter G.
Re: Gov. Gregoire
Right on!
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Exemption 5
________________________________________
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 9:28 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
Cc: Pomerantz, Anne; Anzalone, Mara-Louise; Finch, Peter G.; Harvey, Rachel
Subject: Gov. Gregoire
News
1 new result for National labor relations board
________________________________
Tip: Use quotes ("like this") around a set of words in your query to match them exactly.
Learn
more<http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=136861&hl=en&source=alertsm
ail&cd=We-Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE>.
Remove<http://www.google.com/alerts/remove?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&s=AB2Xq4ixgae4U9XJPW
N_8lOOaVEEbn_MHk9Cwtg&cd=We-Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> this alert.
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00001452
Create<http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> another alert.
Manage<http://www.google.com/alerts/manage?hl=en&gl=us&source=alertsmail&cd=We-
Ecid5VFk&cad=CAEQARgAQNrQ4u4ESAE> your alerts.
NLRB-FOIA-U00001453
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Solomon, Lafe E.
W ednesday, April 20, 2011 9:14 AM
Schiff, Robert; Garza, Jose
Boeing call log
Boeing call log-Lafe.doc; Boeing call log--Barry.doc
I have attached 2 files: one is a summary of my conversations and the other is Barry Kearneys conversation with
Boeings outside lawyer. Lafe
NLRB-FOIA-U00001456
3/18/11
Mike Luttig, Boeings GC, called me at 2 pm. He told me that he was miffed that
although he had done what I asked (gotten Boeing to agree that no unit ees would be laid
off between now and the end of the contract expiration in Sept, 2012), I was still
considering issuing complaint. I told him that the Machinists had proposed that the
parties meet for a 2-week period with a mediator and that I thought that if Boeing
accepted that offer, the parties might well reach a settlement. He told me that rather than
accept that offer, he thought that he would go to the Hill to prevent me from litigating the
case. I told him that he would have to get such a rider through the Senate. I said that I had
the CEO on tape saying that the move to SC was not because of economics but because
the Machinists strike. I said I had a triable case and that I would do whatever I thought
was right under the NLRA. But I reiterated that I thought the parties should meet and try
to reach a settlement.
3/28/11
Luttig called and I asked Barry Kearney to be on the call with me. Luttig said that Boeing
would not agree to a conversation with the Machinists with a mediator, but that he was
willing to talk to them. He said he would call them this week.
4/8/11
Senator Graham called me at 11:15 am. I was in the Museum of Modern Art in NYC and
talked to him on my cell phone. He told me that the retaliatory charge of the Machinists
against Boeing would have huge economic and political consequences. He said that the
charge would scare Boeings customers and could affect orders. He said that the political
fallout would be huge and that he was more reasonable than his Senate counterpart (Sen.
De Mint).
I explained to him that I had been trying to settle this case for the last 6 months, and I
asked for his help in getting Boeing to agree to the Machinists request for a 2-week
mediated conversation. I told him that this case had every potential to settle as Boeings
business was booming and that the parties had both indicated to me that their futures
were tied to a successful relationship in the future, but that I had been unsuccessful in
getting the parties to talk to each other, rather than to me. I also told him that I would not
be seeking the dismantling of the S.C plant and that I had made it clear to the Machinists
that that plant was here to stay.
He said that he was pessimistic that the Machinists and Boeing could work things out, but
that he never thought it was a bad idea to talk. I thanked him for being willing to help.
4/11/11
I left a message for Debbie Durkin, the aide to Senator Graham who place the call on Fri.
I received a call back from Walt Kuhn at noon. I told him that I was following up on my
NLRB-FOIA-U00001457
conversation with the Senator on Fri and that I wanted to know if he had been successful
in contacting Boeing. He said that the Senator would call me back later this week. I told
Walt that I was ready to begin the complaint process and that I could not hold it up
indefinitely. I said that I wanted to talk to the Senator today if possible, and he said that
he would see what he could do.
4/11/11
Senator Graham called me at 3 pm. He said that he had talked to Boeing, and they had no
interest in mediating the complaint, which was totally without merit. He said that he
agreed with Boeing and understood their position. He said that if a complaint was filed, it
will be nasty, very, very nasty. He said that this was a case of how not to grow the
economy. He said that we had to do what we had to do, and he had to do what he had to
do. It was up to us. He said that if complaint issued, he was going full guns a-blazing.
NLRB-FOIA-U00001458
NLRB-FOIA-U00001459
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:01 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: time to decide
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001468
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:10 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; W agner,
Anthony R.
RE: time to decide
Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
NLRB-FOIA-U00001469
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001470
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:12 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.;
W agner, Anthony R.
RE: time to decide
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
NLRB-FOIA-U00001471
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001472
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:12 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; W agner,
Anthony R.
RE: time to decide
Ditto!
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00001473
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001474
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Thursday, April 28, 2011 7:56 PM
Cleeland, Nancy
Re: time to decide
Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00001475
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00001476
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:03 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Merritt, Susannah C.
FW : 19-CA-32431
Should we talk?
Diane,
Unfortunately, Exemption 6, 7(C), (D) will not be available tomorrow as planned. We are working on getting alternative dates for his
testimony. I will keep you informed as I know more. will provide his affidavit
Exemption 6, 7(C), (D) Exemption 6, 7(C), (D) tomorrow as planned, and can provide testimony regarding
- Carson
NLRB-FOIA-U00001522
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:11 PM
Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.; Merritt, Susannah C.
RE: 19-CA-32431
Should we talk?
Diane,
Unfortunately,
Exemption 6, 7(C), ...
will not be available tomorrow as planned. We are working on getting alternative dates for his
testimony. I will keep you informed as I know more. tomorrow as planned, and can provide testimony regarding - Carson
NLRB-FOIA-U00001523
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:43 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.
RE: 19-CA-32431
Colleen and I spoke and agree Ill go ahead and email Carson.
Should we talk?
Diane,
Unfortunately, Exemption 6,
7(C), ...
will not be available tomorrow as planned. We are working on getting alternative dates for his
testimony. I will keep you informed as I know more. tomorrow as planned, and can provide testimony regarding - Carson
NLRB-FOIA-U00001524
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
W ednesday, December 08, 2010 12:44 PM
Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne; Pomerantz, Anne; Kobe, James
FW : Boeing submission to the General Counsel
Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf
NLRB-FOIA-U00001530
NLRB-FOIA-U00001531
NLRB-FOIA-U00001531
NLRB-FOIA-U00001532
NLRB-FOIA-U00001532
NLRB-FOIA-U00001533
NLRB-FOIA-U00001533
NLRB-FOIA-U00001534
NLRB-FOIA-U00001534
NLRB-FOIA-U00001535
NLRB-FOIA-U00001535
NLRB-FOIA-U00001536
NLRB-FOIA-U00001536
NLRB-FOIA-U00001537
NLRB-FOIA-U00001537
NLRB-FOIA-U00001538
NLRB-FOIA-U00001538
NLRB-FOIA-U00001539
NLRB-FOIA-U00001539
NLRB-FOIA-U00001540
NLRB-FOIA-U00001540
NLRB-FOIA-U00001541
NLRB-FOIA-U00001541
NLRB-FOIA-U00001542
NLRB-FOIA-U00001542
NLRB-FOIA-U00001543
NLRB-FOIA-U00001543
NLRB-FOIA-U00001544
NLRB-FOIA-U00001544
NLRB-FOIA-U00001545
NLRB-FOIA-U00001545
NLRB-FOIA-U00001546
NLRB-FOIA-U00001546
NLRB-FOIA-U00001547
NLRB-FOIA-U00001547
NLRB-FOIA-U00001548
NLRB-FOIA-U00001548
NLRB-FOIA-U00001549
NLRB-FOIA-U00001549
NLRB-FOIA-U00001550
NLRB-FOIA-U00001550
NLRB-FOIA-U00001551
NLRB-FOIA-U00001551
NLRB-FOIA-U00001552
NLRB-FOIA-U00001552
NLRB-FOIA-U00001553
NLRB-FOIA-U00001553
NLRB-FOIA-U00001554
NLRB-FOIA-U00001554
NLRB-FOIA-U00001555
NLRB-FOIA-U00001555
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Todd, Dianne
W ednesday, December 08, 2010 1:07 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.
RE: Boeing submission to the General Counsel
2010 12_03 Ltr to Todd.pdf
Can we meet today to discuss the Unions submission on the newest charge?
Thanks
NLRB-FOIA-U00001556
NLRB-FOIA-U00001557
NLRB-FOIA-U00001557
NLRB-FOIA-U00001558
NLRB-FOIA-U00001558
NLRB-FOIA-U00001559
NLRB-FOIA-U00001559
NLRB-FOIA-U00001560
NLRB-FOIA-U00001560
NLRB-FOIA-U00001561
NLRB-FOIA-U00001561
NLRB-FOIA-U00001562
NLRB-FOIA-U00001562
NLRB-FOIA-U00001563
NLRB-FOIA-U00001563
NLRB-FOIA-U00001564
NLRB-FOIA-U00001564
NLRB-FOIA-U00001565
NLRB-FOIA-U00001565
NLRB-FOIA-U00001566
NLRB-FOIA-U00001566
NLRB-FOIA-U00001567
NLRB-FOIA-U00001567
NLRB-FOIA-U00001568
NLRB-FOIA-U00001568
NLRB-FOIA-U00001569
NLRB-FOIA-U00001569
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
-----Original Message-----
From: Willen, Debra L
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 4:22 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Katz, Judy; Omberg,
Bob
Subject: Haley: New SC labor chief to fight SC Boeing union - WIS News 10 - Columbia, South
Carolina |
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13636166
NLRB-FOIA-U00001573
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:56 AM
Mattina, Celeste J.
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
Exemption 5
Rich
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00001590
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:25 AM
Mattina, Celeste J.
Non-Responsive
The meeting lasted 3 hours; based on my experience before, it's very difficult to follow over
the phone; better not to have strained your ears!
Talk soon.
Cheers,
Rich
-----Original Message-----
From: Mattina, Celeste J.
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 9:10 AM
To: Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject:
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
. Cant wait to hear your perspectives on the meeting, so sorry i missed it. busy here you a call at some point next week.
________________________________________
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:56 AM
To: Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject:
Non-Responsive
probably should have asked to be conferenced in to listen to the discussion, but we have been
Non-Responsive
I will give
Non-Responsive
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00001591
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00001592
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Friday, March 25, 2011 6:02 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
Re: Judge Luttig call
Monday at 2:30
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Barry:
The Judge's office just forwarded me some times when the Judge
Monday, noon to 1 PM EDT or 2:30 -
Best, Bill
William J. Kilberg
GIBSON DUNN
NLRB-FOIA-U00001659
3/18/11
Mike Luttig, Boeings GC, called me at 2 pm. He told me that he was miffed that
although he had done what I asked (gotten Boeing to agree that no unit ees would be laid
off between now and the end of the contract expiration in Sept, 2012), I was still
considering issuing complaint. I told him that the Machinists had proposed that the
parties meet for a 2-week period with a mediator and that I thought that if Boeing
accepted that offer, the parties might well reach a settlement. He told me that rather than
accept that offer, he thought that he would go to the Hill to prevent me from litigating the
case. I told him that he would have to get such a rider through the Senate. I said that I had
the CEO on tape saying that the move to SC was not because of economics but because
the Machinists strike. I said I had a triable case and that I would do whatever I thought
was right under the NLRA. But I reiterated that I thought the parties should meet and try
to reach a settlement.
3/28/11
Luttig called and I asked Barry Kearney to be on the call with me. Luttig said that Boeing
would not agree to a conversation with the Machinists with a mediator, but that he was
willing to talk to them. He said he would call them this week.
4/8/11
Senator Graham called me at 11:15 am. I was in the Museum of Modern Art in NYC and
talked to him on my cell phone. He told me that the retaliatory charge of the Machinists
against Boeing would have huge economic and political consequences. He said that the
charge would scare Boeings customers and could affect orders. He said that the political
fallout would be huge and that he was more reasonable than his Senate counterpart (Sen.
De Mint).
I explained to him that I had been trying to settle this case for the last 6 months, and I
asked for his help in getting Boeing to agree to the Machinists request for a 2-week
mediated conversation. I told him that this case had every potential to settle as Boeings
business was booming and that the parties had both indicated to me that their futures
were tied to a successful relationship in the future, but that I had been unsuccessful in
getting the parties to talk to each other, rather than to me. I also told him that I would not
be seeking the dismantling of the S.C plant and that I had made it clear to the Machinists
that that plant was here to stay.
He said that he was pessimistic that the Machinists and Boeing could work things out, but
that he never thought it was a bad idea to talk. I thanked him for being willing to help.
4/11/11
I left a message for Debbie Durkin, the aide to Senator Graham who place the call on Fri.
I received a call back from Walt Kuhn at noon. I told him that I was following up on my
NLRB-FOIA-U00001660
conversation with the Senator on Fri and that I wanted to know if he had been successful
in contacting Boeing. He said that the Senator would call me back later this week. I told
Walt that I was ready to begin the complaint process and that I could not hold it up
indefinitely. I said that I wanted to talk to the Senator today if possible, and he said that
he would see what he could do.
4/11/11
Senator Graham called me at 3 pm. He said that he had talked to Boeing, and they had no
interest in mediating the complaint, which was totally without merit. He said that he
agreed with Boeing and understood their position. He said that if a complaint was filed, it
will be nasty, very, very nasty. He said that this was a case of how not to grow the
economy. He said that we had to do what we had to do, and he had to do what he had to
do. It was up to us. He said that if complaint issued, he was going full guns a-blazing.
NLRB-FOIA-U00001661
3/18/11
Mike Luttig, Boeings GC, called me at 2 pm. He told me that he was miffed that
although he had done what I asked (gotten Boeing to agree that no unit ees would be laid
off between now and the end of the contract expiration in Sept, 2012), I was still
considering issuing complaint. I told him that the Machinists had proposed that the
parties meet for a 2-week period with a mediator and that I thought that if Boeing
accepted that offer, the parties might well reach a settlement. He told me that rather than
accept that offer, he thought that he would go to the Hill to prevent me from litigating the
case. I told him that he would have to get such a rider through the Senate. I said that I had
the CEO on tape saying that the move to SC was not because of economics but because
the Machinists strike. I said I had a triable case and that I would do whatever I thought
was right under the NLRA. But I reiterated that I thought the parties should meet and try
to reach a settlement.
3/28/11
Luttig called and I asked Barry Kearney to be on the call with me. Luttig said that Boeing
would not agree to a conversation with the Machinists with a mediator, but that he was
willing to talk to them. He said he would call them this week.
4/8/11
Senator Graham called me at 11:15 am. I was in the Museum of Modern Art in NYC and
talked to him on my cell phone. He told me that the retaliatory charge of the Machinists
against Boeing would have huge economic and political consequences. He said that the
charge would scare Boeings customers and could affect orders. He said that the political
fallout would be huge and that he was more reasonable than his Senate counterpart (Sen.
De Mint).
I explained to him that I had been trying to settle this case for the last 6 months, and I
asked for his help in getting Boeing to agree to the Machinists request for a 2-week
mediated conversation. I told him that this case had every potential to settle as Boeings
business was booming and that the parties had both indicated to me that their futures
were tied to a successful relationship in the future, but that I had been unsuccessful in
getting the parties to talk to each other, rather than to me. I also told him that I would not
be seeking the dismantling of the S.C plant and that I had made it clear to the Machinists
that that plant was here to stay.
He said that he was pessimistic that the Machinists and Boeing could work things out, but
that he never thought it was a bad idea to talk. I thanked him for being willing to help.
4/11/11
I left a message for Debbie Durkin, the aide to Senator Graham who place the call on Fri.
I received a call back from Walt Kuhn at noon. I told him that I was following up on my
NLRB-FOIA-U00001662
conversation with the Senator on Fri and that I wanted to know if he had been successful
in contacting Boeing. He said that the Senator would call me back later this week. I told
Walt that I was ready to begin the complaint process and that I could not hold it up
indefinitely. I said that I wanted to talk to the Senator today if possible, and he said that
he would see what he could do.
4/11/11
Senator Graham called me at 3 pm. He said that he had talked to Boeing, and they had no
interest in mediating the complaint, which was totally without merit. He said that he
agreed with Boeing and understood their position. He said that if a complaint was filed, it
will be nasty, very, very nasty. He said that this was a case of how not to grow the
economy. He said that we had to do what we had to do, and he had to do what he had to
do. It was up to us. He said that if complaint issued, he was going full guns a-blazing.
NLRB-FOIA-U00001663
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
At the request of the Labor and Employee Relations Practice Group, Lafe Solomon, Acting
General Counsel of the NLRB, recently met with a group of our clients and attorneys to
discuss and respond to questions regarding some of his recent controversial decisions and
initiatives.
Solomon opened the discussion by providing his reasoning behind the much publicized complaint
he authorized against the Boeing Company regarding its decision to produce certain aircraft
in South Carolina. Solomon emphasized that in his view there was nothing "unprecedented"
about the complaint and that it was based on evidence which, in his view, would demonstrate
Boeing's retaliatory, and therefore illegal, motive in making its decision.
Non-Responsive
__________________________________________________________
Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including any attachments) is not
intended to be and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties
that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
(The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax
practice.)
The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and/or confidential
information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
NLRB-FOIA-U00001771
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Monday, May 16, 2011 3:07 PM
'Toner, Jack'
RE: do you have any problem with this summary of your presentation last week?
Non-Responsive
-----Original Message-----
From: Toner, Jack [mailto:JToner@seyfarth.com]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:57 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: do you have any problem with this summary of your presentation last week?
At the request of the Labor and Employee Relations Practice Group, Lafe
Solomon, Acting General Counsel of the NLRB, recently met with a group
of our clients and attorneys to discuss and respond to questions
regarding some of his recent controversial decisions and initiatives.
Solomon opened the discussion by providing his reasoning behind the much
publicized complaint he authorized against the Boeing Company regarding
its decision to produce certain aircraft in South Carolina. Solomon
emphasized that in his view there was nothing "unprecedented" about the
complaint and that it was based on evidence which, in his view, would
demonstrate Boeing's retaliatory, and therefore illegal, motive in
making its decision.
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00001772
__________________________________________________________
Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including any attachments) is not
intended to be and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties
that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
(The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax
practice.)
The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and/or confidential
information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
NLRB-FOIA-U00001773
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
I told you we wouldn't do anything that you would have a problem with
-----Original Message-----
From: Solomon, Lafe E. [mailto:Lafe.Solomon@nlrb.gov]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 3:07 PM
To: Toner, Jack
Subject: RE: do you have any problem with this summary of your presentation last week?
Non-Responsive
-----Original Message-----
From: Toner, Jack [mailto:JToner@seyfarth.com]
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:57 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.
Subject: do you have any problem with this summary of your presentation last week?
At the request of the Labor and Employee Relations Practice Group, Lafe
Solomon, Acting General Counsel of the NLRB, recently met with a group
of our clients and attorneys to discuss and respond to questions
regarding some of his recent controversial decisions and initiatives.
Solomon opened the discussion by providing his reasoning behind the much
publicized complaint he authorized against the Boeing Company regarding
its decision to produce certain aircraft in South Carolina. Solomon
emphasized that in his view there was nothing "unprecedented" about the
complaint and that it was based on evidence which, in his view, would
demonstrate Boeing's retaliatory, and therefore illegal, motive in
making its decision.
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00001774
Non-Responsive
__________________________________________________________
Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including
any attachments) is not intended to be and cannot be used by any
taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed
on the taxpayer.
(The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury
Regulations governing tax practice.)
The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged
and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual
or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this
communication is strictly prohibited.
__________________________________________________________
Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein (including any attachments) is not
intended to be and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties
that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
(The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax
practice.)
The information contained in this transmission is attorney privileged and/or confidential
information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above.
If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
NLRB-FOIA-U00001775
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
W ednesday, February 23, 2011 10:05 AM
Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
RE: staff meeting
March 7. Sorry! Barry did tell me that he told Campbell about the meeting, and that the union might want to come in as
well depending on whats discussed/decided on March 7.
Exemption 5
Non-Responsive
I just spoke with Barry and Boeing is coming in another date (Miriam and Deb we can discuss
later).
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00002174
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00002175
NLRB-FOIA-U00002175
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00002176
NLRB-FOIA-U00002176
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:14 PM
Sophir, Jayme
Fw: Boeing - time to decide
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Thank you all for your help I think theres a piece of everyone in this statement. I went ahead and used my best
judgment and sent this in my name. Hope its not a firing offense!
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which are expressly permitted by the National Labor
Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate
against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike activity. The result would have been the same had
the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location. Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings
South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative
law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to address the merits of the complaint.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
NLRB-FOIA-U00002188
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
The complaint has nothing to do with state right-to-work laws, which ban certain types of employer-union agreements and
are expressly permitted by the National Labor Relations Act. Rather it alleges that Boeing decided to locate a particular
line of work in a non-union facility to retaliate against union employees who had engaged in legally-protected strike
activity. The result would have been the same had the line been moved to a non-union facility in any location.
Furthermore, the complaint does not seek to close Boeings South Carolina facility or to prohibit Boeing from making a
non-discriminatory decision to do work in that state. Both parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and
arguments at a hearing scheduled before an NLRB administrative law judge in June, which is the appropriate time to
address the merits of the complaint.
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00002189
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
W ednesday, February 23, 2011 10:05 AM
Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
RE: staff meeting
March 7. Sorry! Barry did tell me that he told Campbell about the meeting, and that the union might want to come in as
well depending on whats discussed/decided on March 7.
Exemption 5
Non-Responsive
I just spoke with Barry and Boeing is coming in another date (Miriam and Deb we can discuss
later).
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00002196
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00002197
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Thursday, April 28, 2011 10:30 AM
Advice Attorney W illen, Debra L
RE: Boeing's labour problems: Moving factories to flee unions | The Economist
Exactly; it just shows you how incredibly reactionary the US is, that the conservative Economist thinks were Neanderthal.
From:
Advice Attorney
From: To:
Advice Attorney
Exemption 6 Privacy
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/boeings_labour_problems
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00002202
Recipient
Compton, Kayce R. Willen, Debra L
Read
NLRB-FOIA-U00002203
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:26 AM
W illen, Debra L; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam
RE: NPR Morning Edition
Also - Interesting NYT article covering settlement possibilities and a mgt lawyer who agrees with Lafe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/business/14boeing.html?_r=1&ref=business
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Nice piece on NPR this morning with quotes from Lafe, David Campbell, among others.
Can be heard again at 9:10 a.m. or on the website.
NLRB-FOIA-U00002210
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 8:34 AM
Farrell, Ellen; W illen, Debra L; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: NPR Morning Edition
Sounds familiar.
Scott Hamilton, managing director of the Leeham Company, an aviation consulting firm, sees one possible
route toward a settlement. He said production demands were so great for the Dreamliner that Boeing
could expand its long-term production of aircraft to at least 10 a month in the Puget Sound area, from the
planned seven, while still keeping the production line in South Carolina. That way, he said, Boeing could
say the union cannot complain that its members had been hurt by creating the South Carolina production
line. He said Boeing has recently talked of assembling 17 Dreamliners a month.
Miriam Szapiro
Supervisory attorney
NLRB Division of Advice
202-273-0998
Miriam.Szapiro@nlrb.gov
Also - Interesting NYT article covering settlement possibilities and a mgt lawyer who agrees with Lafe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/business/14boeing.html?_r=1&ref=business
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Nice piece on NPR this morning with quotes from Lafe, David Campbell, among others.
Can be heard again at 9:10 a.m. or on the website.
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00002211
Recipient
Farrell, Ellen Willen, Debra L Kearney, Barry J. Sophir, Jayme
Read
NLRB-FOIA-U00002212
Non-Responsive
Hi there-
Susannah will reschedule another affidavit on Friday so that she can help out and take the Boeing statement on
Friday.
NLRB-FOIA-U00002213
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:43 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Jablonski, Colleen G.
RE: 19-CA-32431
Colleen and I spoke and agree Ill go ahead and email Carson.
Should we talk?
Diane,
Unfortunately, Exemption 6,
7(C), ...
will not be available tomorrow as planned. We are working on getting alternative dates for his
testimony. I will keep you informed as I know more. tomorrow as planned, and can provide testimony regarding - Carson
NLRB-FOIA-U00002214
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:44 PM
Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: CNN questions on correction
Thanks all,
Im thinking of something like this for the 2
question
nd
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Wilma, I had just finished this message as I saw yours coming in:
On number #2,
Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00002810
202-273-0013
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
NLRB-FOIA-U00002811
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00002812
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002813
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:58 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose
Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: CNN questions on correction
Thanks for the great ideas everyone. I will try to consolidate them into a couple of answers and circulate them for
suggestions.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
#1
Exemption 5
#2
Exemption 5
Rich
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00002814
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00002815
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002816
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:21 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
FW : question for daily story
BAI11235.pdf; image001.jpg
Exemption 5
Hey Nancy -- Thanks for helping me out with this. I really appreciate it!
For the daily story about Sens. Alexander and Graham's right-to-work legislation, I'd love to get a comment on the
ramifications of the language, both for labor and for the NLRB. Something similar to what we talked about over the phone:
NLRB-FOIA-U00002822
That this is an attempt to mandate all states adopt right-to-work policies. That this legislation is really nothing new and has
been introduced by the GOP many times before.
To give you a better sense of what I'm looking into for my feature story: I'm writing about the natural oscillation of the
board and it's pro-union vs. pro-business decisions depending on which party is controlling the White House. My
argument is that the Boeing case provides ammunition to those that are trying to prove the NLRB has an activist agenda,
but in reality, the NLRB under Obama is no more pro-union than it was pro-business under the previous Bush
administration. The NLRB is also under much greater scrutiny on the whole due to the larger labor environment. I would
love to get a comment about the natural progression of the board becoming politicized, and how it's historically seesawed
between pro-union and pro-business decisions based on the administration.
Thanks so much and please let me know if you have any questions! I'm on my cell today: 617-633-0425
Best,
Lauren
Lauren Smith
Staff Writer
lsmith@cq.com
(o): 202-650-6604 **please note new number!
(m): 617-633-0425
Congressional Quarterly
77 K St., NE
Washington, DC 20002
----------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal
views which are not the views of CQ Roll Call or its owner, The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network. For company information go to
http://legal.economistgroup.com.
NLRB-FOIA-U00002823
NLRB-FOIA-U00002824
BA I11235
S.L.C.
A MENDMENT NO.l l l l
Calendar No.l l l
S. 493
To reauthorize and improv the SBIR and STTR programs,
e and for other purposes.
Referred to the Committee on l l l l l and
l l l l l ordered to be printed
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
A MENDMENT intended to be proposed by Mr. A LEX NDER
A (for himself and Mr. GRA M)
HA V iz:
1
A the appropriate place, insert the follow t ing:
2
SEC. l . PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO WORK.
l 3
(a) A PPLICA BILITY OF NLRA TO STA TE RIGHT
TO
4
ORK L A S.Section 14 of the National Labor Rela-
W W tions A (29 U.S.C. 164) is amended by striking sub-
ct 5
6
section (b) and inserting the follow ing:
7
(b) Nothing in this A shall be construed to limit
ct
8
application of any State law that prohibits, or other-
the w een 9
ise places restraints upon, agreements betw labor or-
10 ganizations and employ that make membership in the
ers
NLRB-FOIA-U00002825
BA I11235
S.L.C.
2
labor organization, or that require the pay ment of dues
1
2
fees to such organization, a condition of employ or ment
either before or after hiring..
3
4
(b) A PPLICA BILITY
TO OF
RA A L ABOR A ILW Y CT
TO
S 5
TATE RIGHT
6
Labor A (45 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) is amended by adding
ct at ing:
7
the end the follow 8
SEC. 209. EFFECT ON STA TE RIGHT TO WORK LA WS.
9
Nothing in this A shall be construed to limit the
ct
10
application of any State law that prohibits, or otherw ise
places restraints upon, agreements betw een labor organi-
11
12
zations and carriers that make membership in the labor
organization, or that require the pay ment of dues or fees
13
14
such organization, a condition of employ to ment either be-
15 fore or after hiring..
NLRB-FOIA-U00002826
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
Lafe, do you have time to meet with me and Nancy this afternoon? Sometime before 4?
Getting a lot of questions from the hill and the press.
Sorry to be a bother.
NLRB-FOIA-U00002827
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00002828
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:20 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
FW : CNN questions on correction
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00002849
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00002850
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002851
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.;
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
As to #2,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
.
On #2,
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002855
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00002856
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002857
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:58 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose
Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: CNN questions on correction
Thanks for the great ideas everyone. I will try to consolidate them into a couple of answers and circulate them for
suggestions.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
#1
Exemption 5
#2
Exemption 5
Rich
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00002858
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00002859
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002860
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
Friday, April 29, 2011 4:01 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
As to #2,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002861
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00002862
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
3
NLRB-FOIA-U00002863
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002864
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 4:38 PM
Sophir, Jayme; Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: CNN questions on correction
My proposed response:
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00002865
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
As to #2, i
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002866
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
3
NLRB-FOIA-U00002867
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
4
NLRB-FOIA-U00002868
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002869
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:04 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.;
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
FW : CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00002870
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
As to #2,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002871
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
3
NLRB-FOIA-U00002872
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
4
NLRB-FOIA-U00002873
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002874
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:04 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Sophir, Jayme; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
My proposed response:
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002875
Exemption 5
Thoughts?
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
As to #2,
Exemption 5
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00002876
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
3
NLRB-FOIA-U00002877
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB-FOIA-U00002878
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002879
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:15 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir,
Jayme
RE: CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002880
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
As to #2,
Exemption 5
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00002881
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
3
NLRB-FOIA-U00002882
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB-FOIA-U00002883
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002884
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:24 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.;
Sophir, Jayme
Re: CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002890
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002891
Exemption 5
As to #2,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
NLRB-FOIA-U00002892
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
4
NLRB-FOIA-U00002893
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002894
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:27 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir,
Jayme
RE: CNN questions on correction
Even better.
Exemption 5
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00002895
My suggestions in red:
Rich
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00002896
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
As to #2,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002897
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
4
NLRB-FOIA-U00002898
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002899
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Liebman, W ilma B.
Friday, April 29, 2011 6:24 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney,
Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
As to #2,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002900
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00002901
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
3
NLRB-FOIA-U00002902
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002903
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Saturday, April 30, 2011 12:56 AM
Farrell, Ellen
Fw: CNN questions on correction
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002904
As to #2,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
NLRB-FOIA-U00002905
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
NLRB-FOIA-U00002906
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002907
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Farrell, Ellen
Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:51 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
RE: question for daily story
image001.jpg
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
NLRB-FOIA-U00002908
Nothing in the Act shall be construed to limit the application of any State law that prohibits, or otherwise places restraints
upon, agreements between labor organizations and employers, or that require the payment of dues or fees to such
organizations, a condition of employment either before or after hiring."
Hey Nancy -- Thanks for helping me out with this. I really appreciate it!
For the daily story about Sens. Alexander and Graham's right-to-work legislation, I'd love to get a comment on the
ramifications of the language, both for labor and for the NLRB. Something similar to what we talked about over the phone:
That this is an attempt to mandate all states adopt right-to-work policies. That this legislation is really nothing new and has
been introduced by the GOP many times before.
To give you a better sense of what I'm looking into for my feature story: I'm writing about the natural oscillation of the
board and it's pro-union vs. pro-business decisions depending on which party is controlling the White House. My
argument is that the Boeing case provides ammunition to those that are trying to prove the NLRB has an activist agenda,
but in reality, the NLRB under Obama is no more pro-union than it was pro-business under the previous Bush
administration. The NLRB is also under much greater scrutiny on the whole due to the larger labor environment. I would
love to get a comment about the natural progression of the board becoming politicized, and how it's historically seesawed
between pro-union and pro-business decisions based on the administration.
Thanks so much and please let me know if you have any questions! I'm on my cell today: 617-633-0425
Best,
Lauren
Lauren Smith
Staff Writer
lsmith@cq.com
(o): 202-650-6604 **please note new number!
(m): 617-633-0425
Congressional Quarterly
77 K St., NE
Washington, DC 20002
NLRB-FOIA-U00002909
----------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal
views which are not the views of CQ Roll Call or its owner, The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network. For company information go to
http://legal.economistgroup.com.
NLRB-FOIA-U00002910
NLRB-FOIA-U00002911
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
CNN questions on correction
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
NLRB-FOIA-U00002926
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00002927
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002928
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Liebman, W ilma B.
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:26 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: CNN questions on correction
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00002929
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00002930
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002931
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:28 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: CNN questions on correction
Wilma, I had just finished this message as I saw yours coming in:
On number #2,
Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00002932
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00002933
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002934
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:44 PM
Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: CNN questions on correction
Thanks all,
Im thinking of something like this for the 2
question
nd
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Wilma, I had just finished this message as I saw yours coming in:
On number #2,
Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00002935
202-273-0013
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
NLRB-FOIA-U00002936
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00002937
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002938
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:55 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose
RE: CNN questions on correction
#1
Exemption 5
#2
Exemption 5
Rich
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
NLRB-FOIA-U00002939
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
NLRB-FOIA-U00002940
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002941
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:24 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.;
Sophir, Jayme
Re: CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
My suggestions in red:
Rich
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002942
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002943
Exemption 5
As to #2,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
NLRB-FOIA-U00002944
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
4
NLRB-FOIA-U00002945
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00002946
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 2:18 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy
Re: comment on boeing letter?
Lafe, do you have time to meet with me and Nancy this afternoon? Sometime before 4?
Getting a lot of questions from the hill and the press.
Sorry to be a bother.
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00002947
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
Lafe, do you have time to meet with me and Nancy this afternoon? Sometime before 4?
Getting a lot of questions from the hill and the press.
Sorry to be a bother.
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00002948
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00002949
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
Lafe, do you have time to meet with me and Nancy this afternoon? Sometime before 4?
Getting a lot of questions from the hill and the press.
Sorry to be a bother.
NLRB-FOIA-U00002950
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00002951
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
Lafe, do you have time to meet with me and Nancy this afternoon? Sometime before 4?
Getting a lot of questions from the hill and the press.
Sorry to be a bother.
NLRB-FOIA-U00002952
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00002953
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:20 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
FW : CNN questions on correction
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00003140
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00003141
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00003142
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:28 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: CNN questions on correction
Wilma, I had just finished this message as I saw yours coming in:
On number #2,
Exemption 5
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00003143
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00003144
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00003145
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:21 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
FW : question for daily story
BAI11235.pdf; image001.jpg
Exemption 5
Hey Nancy -- Thanks for helping me out with this. I really appreciate it!
For the daily story about Sens. Alexander and Graham's right-to-work legislation, I'd love to get a comment on the
ramifications of the language, both for labor and for the NLRB. Something similar to what we talked about over the phone:
NLRB-FOIA-U00003146
That this is an attempt to mandate all states adopt right-to-work policies. That this legislation is really nothing new and has
been introduced by the GOP many times before.
To give you a better sense of what I'm looking into for my feature story: I'm writing about the natural oscillation of the
board and it's pro-union vs. pro-business decisions depending on which party is controlling the White House. My
argument is that the Boeing case provides ammunition to those that are trying to prove the NLRB has an activist agenda,
but in reality, the NLRB under Obama is no more pro-union than it was pro-business under the previous Bush
administration. The NLRB is also under much greater scrutiny on the whole due to the larger labor environment. I would
love to get a comment about the natural progression of the board becoming politicized, and how it's historically seesawed
between pro-union and pro-business decisions based on the administration.
Thanks so much and please let me know if you have any questions! I'm on my cell today: 617-633-0425
Best,
Lauren
Lauren Smith
Staff Writer
lsmith@cq.com
(o): 202-650-6604 **please note new number!
(m): 617-633-0425
Congressional Quarterly
77 K St., NE
Washington, DC 20002
----------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal
views which are not the views of CQ Roll Call or its owner, The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network. For company information go to
http://legal.economistgroup.com.
NLRB-FOIA-U00003147
BA I11235
S.L.C.
A MENDMENT NO.l l l l
Calendar No.l l l
S. 493
To reauthorize and improv the SBIR and STTR programs,
e and for other purposes.
Referred to the Committee on l l l l l and
l l l l l ordered to be printed
Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed
A MENDMENT intended to be proposed by Mr. A LEX NDER
A (for himself and Mr. GRA M)
HA V iz:
1
A the appropriate place, insert the follow t ing:
2
SEC. l . PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO WORK.
l 3
(a) A PPLICA BILITY OF NLRA TO STA TE RIGHT
TO
4
ORK L A S.Section 14 of the National Labor Rela-
W W tions A (29 U.S.C. 164) is amended by striking sub-
ct 5
6
section (b) and inserting the follow ing:
7
(b) Nothing in this A shall be construed to limit
ct
8
application of any State law that prohibits, or other-
the w een 9
ise places restraints upon, agreements betw labor or-
10 ganizations and employ that make membership in the
ers
NLRB-FOIA-U00003148
BA I11235
S.L.C.
2
labor organization, or that require the pay ment of dues
1
2
fees to such organization, a condition of employ or ment
either before or after hiring..
3
4
(b) A PPLICA BILITY
TO OF
RA A L ABOR A ILW Y CT
TO
S 5
TATE RIGHT
6
Labor A (45 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) is amended by adding
ct at ing:
7
the end the follow 8
SEC. 209. EFFECT ON STA TE RIGHT TO WORK LA WS.
9
Nothing in this A shall be construed to limit the
ct
10
application of any State law that prohibits, or otherw ise
places restraints upon, agreements betw een labor organi-
11
12
zations and carriers that make membership in the labor
organization, or that require the pay ment of dues or fees
13
14
such organization, a condition of employ to ment either be-
15 fore or after hiring..
NLRB-FOIA-U00003149
NLRB-FOIA-U00003150
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 2:18 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy
Re: comment on boeing letter?
Lafe, do you have time to meet with me and Nancy this afternoon? Sometime before 4?
Getting a lot of questions from the hill and the press.
Sorry to be a bother.
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00003151
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
rich ahearn Rich Ahearn's personal email W ednesday, May 04, 2011 9:41 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
Re: seattletimes.com: Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case
Lafe,
Exemption 5
May 16 is the conference call with ALJ Lana Parke; might learn more then. Still
expect bunch of motions...we'll see.
I too am astonished at the level of vitriol...really underscores how powerful interests can
get politicians to do their bidding. At least Kilberg remains very professional, courteous in
our dealings.
I am speaking with Chuck Cohen and Susan Davis; will be curious about their observations.
I tip my hat to you for remaining calm and steadfast in the face of all this...pretty
impressive.
Cheers,
Rich
On May 4, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Solomon, Lafe E. wrote:
> Rich, before I forget, I wanted you to know that
Exemption 5
Even I
> underestimated the vitriol that the complaint generated but hopefully
> your attys are able to withstand the attacks to come. Hope the
> conference goes well. Lafe
> --------------------------
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: > To: Solomon, Lafe E.
> Sent: Wed May 04 19:35:14 2011
> Subject: seattletimes.com: Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787
> case
>
> This message was sent to you by http://www.seattletimes.com.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case
>
E 6 privacy
E 6 privacy
E...
> In a forceful letter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), top Boeing lawyer
Michael Luttig rejected the labor agency's complaint against the company's opening of a South
Carolina 787 plant, writing that its charges "fundamentally misquote or mischaracterize
statements by Boeing executives."
>
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014961873_bo
> eing05.html
>
>
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00003152
> ======================================================================
>
> TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SEATTLE TIMES PRINT EDITION
> Call (206) 464-2121 or 1-800-542-0820, or go to
> http://seattletimes.com/subscribe
>
> HOW TO ADVERTISE WITH THE SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY ONLINE For information
> on advertising in this e-mail newsletter, or other online marketing
> platforms with The Seattle Times Company, call (206) 464-3237 or
> e-mail websales@seattletimes.com
>
> TO ADVERTISE IN THE SEATTLE TIMES PRINT EDITION Please go to
> http://www.seattletimescompany.com/advertise
> for information.
>
> ======================================================================
>
> >
> www.seattletimes.com Copyright (c) 2009 The Seattle Times Company
NLRB-FOIA-U00003153
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sophir, Jayme
W ednesday, April 20, 2011 10:46 AM
W illen, Debra L
FW : latest news release
boeingreleasefinal.doc
FYI
Tracking:
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00003667
Recipient
Willen, Debra L
Delivery
NLRB-FOIA-U00003668
NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon today issued a complaint against the
Boeing Company alleging that it violated federal labor law by deciding to transfer a
second production line to a non-union facility in South Carolina for discriminatory
reasons.
Boeing announced in 2007 that it planned to assemble seven 787 Dreamliner airplanes
per month in the Puget Sound area of Washington state, where its employees have long
been represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
The company later said that it would create a second production line to assemble an
additional three planes a month to address a growing backlog of orders. In October 2009,
Boeing announced that it would locate that second line at the non-union facility.
In repeated statements to employees and the media, company executives cited the
unionized employees past strike activity and the possibility of strikes occurring
sometime in the future as the overriding factors in deciding to locate the second line in
the non-union facility.
The NLRB launched an investigation of the transfer of second line work in response to
charges filed by the Machinists union and found reasonable cause to believe that Boeing
had violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act because its statements
were coercive to employees and its actions were motivated by a desire to retaliate for past
strikes and chill future strike activity.
A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor
Relations Act, Mr. Solomon said. We also recognize the rights of employers to make
business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law.
I have worked with the parties to encourage settlement in the hope of avoiding costly
litigation, and my door remains open to that possibility.
To remedy the alleged unfair labor practices, the Acting General Counsel seeks an order
that would require Boeing to maintain the second production line in Washington state.
The complaint does not seek closure of the South Carolina facility, nor does it prohibit
Boeing from assembling planes there.
Absent a settlement between the parties, the next step in the process will be a hearing
before an NLRB administrative law judge in Seattle, set for June 14, at which both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments.
For more information about the National Labor Relations Board, please see our website
at
www.nlrb.gov.
NLRB-FOIA-U00003669
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:49 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.;
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: Boeing - CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
As to #2,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00003670
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00003671
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00003672
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 3:58 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose
Farrell, Ellen; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: Boeing - CNN questions on correction
Thanks for the great ideas everyone. I will try to consolidate them into a couple of answers and circulate them for
suggestions.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
#1
Exemption 5
#2
Exemption 5
Rich
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00003673
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00003674
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00003675
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
Friday, April 29, 2011 4:01 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, W ilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn,
Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.
RE: CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
As to #2,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00003676
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00003677
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
3
NLRB-FOIA-U00003678
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
Tracking:
4
NLRB-FOIA-U00003679
Recipient
Farrell, Ellen Solomon, Lafe E. Cleeland, Nancy Liebman, Wilma B. Garza, Jose Ahearn, Richard L. Kearney, Barry J.
Delivery
NLRB-FOIA-U00003680
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Friday, April 29, 2011 5:15 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir,
Jayme
RE: Boeing - CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
My suggestions in red:
Rich
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00003681
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
As to #2, i
Exemption 5
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00003682
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
3
NLRB-FOIA-U00003683
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB-FOIA-U00003684
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00003685
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Liebman, W ilma B.
Friday, April 29, 2011 6:24 PM
Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney,
Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
RE: Boeing - CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
As to #2,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
As to 1,
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00003686
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint about last weeks show,
where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his remarks as if they were true. Now theyre
coming back to us with the other sides responses. Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Well do something on Sunday, but it will be very
short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being ordered to close its plant
when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners. That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen.
Graham (among others) contend that the purpose of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. I understand
your point, but isnt it fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to the shows title as being
NLRB rules against Boeing. I can only point to your news release which uses this headline: National Labor Relations
Board issues complaint against Boeing Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. Everyone we
turn to for guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be called a complaint by
the NLRB. Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for you. Were going to try to get
past it. And FYI the White House declines comment.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks so much for getting back to me. I appreciate the opportunity to explain my concerns. Yesterday, we put out a Fact
2
NLRB-FOIA-U00003687
Check that attempted to correct the misinformation weve seen out there, which was repeated on your show not only by
Sen. Graham but by Candy Crowley herself. This is what we said:
Several news outlets have erroneously reported in recent days that the National Labor Relations Board has ordered the
Boeing Company to close its operations in South Carolina. In fact, the complaint issued on April 20 by the Acting General
Counsel <http://www.nlrb.gov/news/national-labor-relations-board-issues-complaint-against-boeing-company-unlawfully-
transferring-> does not seek to have the South Carolina facility closed. It seeks to halt the transfer of a specific piece of
production work due to allegations that the transfer was unlawfully motivated. The complaint explicitly states that Boeing
may place work where it likes, including at its South Carolina facility, as long as the decision is not made for discriminatory
reasons.
In addition, the Board has not yet considered or ruled on the allegations in the complaint. Under the NLRBs statute, the
General Counsel and the Board are separate and independent, with the General Counsel functioning as prosecutor and
the Board functioning as a court. The case is scheduled to be tried before an administrative law judge, acting under the
Boards authority. That decision could then be appealed to the Board itself for its decision.
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. W hen the shows title said NLRB rules against
Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel
who is a career NLRB attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in the
process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB judge and perhaps ultimately
the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had to close the South
Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of work in question basically 3 planes a month.
Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair amount lately, and probably will
continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer,
and have been here at the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to write
that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow guests to have their say,
3
NLRB-FOIA-U00003688
and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say if the record needs correcting. We made it clear
after we aired Senator Grahams statements that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth
of the matter is that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up, and
there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this further. What is it in Sen.
Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
Tom Bettag
NLRB-FOIA-U00003689
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sophir, Jayme
Saturday, April 30, 2011 10:22 AM
Kearney, Barry J.
RE: CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
________________________________________
From: Kearney, Barry J.
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 12:56 AM
To: Sophir, Jayme
Subject: Fw: CNN questions on correction
Am I off base???
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
________________________________
From: Kearney, Barry J.
To: Ferguson, John H.
Sent: Sat Apr 30 00:55:07 2011
Subject: Fw: CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
________________________________
From: Liebman, Wilma B.
To: Farrell, Ellen; Solomon, Lafe E.; Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.;
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Fri Apr 29 18:23:35 2011
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction
Exemption 5
________________________________
From: Farrell, Ellen
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00003690
Exemption 5
As to #2,
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Division of Advice, NLRB
202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
________________________________
From: Solomon, Lafe E.
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.; Kearney, Barry J.;
Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme
Subject: RE: CNN questions on correction
As to 1,
Exemption 5
________________________________
From: Cleeland, Nancy
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 3:16 PM
To: Solomon, Lafe E.; Liebman, Wilma B.; Garza, Jose; Ahearn, Richard L.
Subject: CNN questions on correction
The CNN Sunday morning show has spent a lot of time this week looking into our complaint
about last weeks show, where they aired Sen. Graham and Candy Crowley repeated some of his
remarks as if they were true. Now theyre coming back to us with the other sides responses.
Id appreciate any input on these questions.
On #1,
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00003691
On #2,
Exemption 5
Thanks
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
________________________________
From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 1:31 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Re: Senator Graham's statements
Dear Nancy,
Let me come back to you at the end of the week with where we are. Sunday, but it will be very short.
It seems there are two significant points, and correct me if you think there are more:
1) You say in your fact check that news organizations erroneously report that Boeing is being
ordered to close its plant when it is only being challenged on its production of Dreamliners.
That should be duly noted, but Boeing and Sen. Graham (among others) contend that the purpose
of the plant was to specifically produce Dreamliners. fair to say that both things can be true?
2) You make a point of the separation between the Board and the General Counsel and point to
I can only point to your news release
Everyone we turn to for
I understand your point, but isnt it
Well do something on
which uses this headline: National Labor Relations Board issues complaint against Boeing
Company for unlawfully transferring work to a non-union facility. called a complaint by the NLRB. ordering the plant closed?
I can see that this has become broad enough that this will quickly get to be a headache for
you. Were going to try to get past it. Tom
And FYI the White House declines comment.
guidance says this is a blurry line, and that a complaint by the General Counsel can be
Is this as critical as your desire do be clear about not
NLRB-FOIA-U00003692
These may seem to be fine points, but in fact they are very significant. When the shows
title said NLRB rules against Boeing, it fed into the idea that this was a political
decision made by a political body. In fact, the Acting General Counsel who is a career NLRB
attorney recently named to the job - merely issued a complaint, which is the first step in
the process. He alleged that Boeing broke the law, but now the case must be heard by an NLRB
judge and perhaps ultimately the Board.
Also, both Candy Crowley and Sen. Graham repeatedly said that the NLRB told Boeing they had
to close the South Carolina plant. That is absolutely not true. There is a finite amount of
work in question basically 3 planes a month. Boeing has tremendous backlogs and could
locate more work in SC.
Id be happy to discuss this further. For better or worse, weve been in the news a fair
amount lately, and probably will continue to be. Im a long time journalist myself just
left the LATimes three years ago after a decade as their labor writer, and have been here at
the NLRB for a year and a half. Im also a fan of Candy Crowleys, so was sorry to have to
write that comment.
Thanks again,
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
________________________________
From: Tom Bettag [mailto:Tom.Bettag@turner.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:26 PM
To: Cleeland, Nancy
Subject: Senator Graham's statements
Dear Ms. Cleeland,
I am the executive producer of State of the Union. the correct person to deal with.
You say there are some errors, and:
Please contact me to avoid repeating them. Also, why no attempt to contact us to balance your
piece with Sen. Graham?
4
NLRB-FOIA-U00003693
There is a simple answer to your question. We are a Sunday morning talk show where we allow
guests to have their say, and we are more than happy to continue reporting on what they say
if the record needs correcting. We made it clear after we aired Senator Grahams statements
that we would continue reporting in order to give the full story. The truth of the matter is
that we did send word to our contact at the White House that this issue was going to come up,
and there has been no response whatsoever.
We pride ourselves on accurate and fair reporting, and we are more than happy to pursue this
further. Tom Bettag What is it in Sen. Grahams statements that you consider to errors?
NLRB-FOIA-U00003694
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
W ednesday, April 20, 2011 11:01 AM
Szapiro, Miriam
FW : latest news release
boeingreleasefinal.doc
FYI
NLRB-FOIA-U00003697
NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon today issued a complaint against the
Boeing Company alleging that it violated federal labor law by deciding to transfer a
second production line to a non-union facility in South Carolina for discriminatory
reasons.
Boeing announced in 2007 that it planned to assemble seven 787 Dreamliner airplanes
per month in the Puget Sound area of Washington state, where its employees have long
been represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
The company later said that it would create a second production line to assemble an
additional three planes a month to address a growing backlog of orders. In October 2009,
Boeing announced that it would locate that second line at the non-union facility.
In repeated statements to employees and the media, company executives cited the
unionized employees past strike activity and the possibility of strikes occurring
sometime in the future as the overriding factors in deciding to locate the second line in
the non-union facility.
The NLRB launched an investigation of the transfer of second line work in response to
charges filed by the Machinists union and found reasonable cause to believe that Boeing
had violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act because its statements
were coercive to employees and its actions were motivated by a desire to retaliate for past
strikes and chill future strike activity.
A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor
Relations Act, Mr. Solomon said. We also recognize the rights of employers to make
business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law.
I have worked with the parties to encourage settlement in the hope of avoiding costly
litigation, and my door remains open to that possibility.
To remedy the alleged unfair labor practices, the Acting General Counsel seeks an order
that would require Boeing to maintain the second production line in Washington state.
The complaint does not seek closure of the South Carolina facility, nor does it prohibit
Boeing from assembling planes there.
Absent a settlement between the parties, the next step in the process will be a hearing
before an NLRB administrative law judge in Seattle, set for June 14, at which both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments.
For more information about the National Labor Relations Board, please see our website
at
www.nlrb.gov.
NLRB-FOIA-U00003698
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Sophir, Jayme
W ednesday, April 20, 2011 10:46 AM
W illen, Debra L
FW : latest news release
boeingreleasefinal.doc
FYI
NLRB-FOIA-U00003704
NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon today issued a complaint against the
Boeing Company alleging that it violated federal labor law by deciding to transfer a
second production line to a non-union facility in South Carolina for discriminatory
reasons.
Boeing announced in 2007 that it planned to assemble seven 787 Dreamliner airplanes
per month in the Puget Sound area of Washington state, where its employees have long
been represented by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
The company later said that it would create a second production line to assemble an
additional three planes a month to address a growing backlog of orders. In October 2009,
Boeing announced that it would locate that second line at the non-union facility.
In repeated statements to employees and the media, company executives cited the
unionized employees past strike activity and the possibility of strikes occurring
sometime in the future as the overriding factors in deciding to locate the second line in
the non-union facility.
The NLRB launched an investigation of the transfer of second line work in response to
charges filed by the Machinists union and found reasonable cause to believe that Boeing
had violated two sections of the National Labor Relations Act because its statements
were coercive to employees and its actions were motivated by a desire to retaliate for past
strikes and chill future strike activity.
A worker's right to strike is a fundamental right guaranteed by the National Labor
Relations Act, Mr. Solomon said. We also recognize the rights of employers to make
business decisions based on their economic interests, but they must do so within the law.
I have worked with the parties to encourage settlement in the hope of avoiding costly
litigation, and my door remains open to that possibility.
To remedy the alleged unfair labor practices, the Acting General Counsel seeks an order
that would require Boeing to maintain the second production line in Washington state.
The complaint does not seek closure of the South Carolina facility, nor does it prohibit
Boeing from assembling planes there.
Absent a settlement between the parties, the next step in the process will be a hearing
before an NLRB administrative law judge in Seattle, set for June 14, at which both
parties will have an opportunity to present evidence and arguments.
For more information about the National Labor Relations Board, please see our website
at
www.nlrb.gov.
NLRB-FOIA-U00003705
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Farrell, Ellen
Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:51 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; W illen, Debra L
RE: question for daily story
image001.jpg
Exemption 5
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
NLRB-FOIA-U00003711
Nothing in the Act shall be construed to limit the application of any State law that prohibits, or otherwise places restraints
upon, agreements between labor organizations and employers, or that require the payment of dues or fees to such
organizations, a condition of employment either before or after hiring."
Hey Nancy -- Thanks for helping me out with this. I really appreciate it!
For the daily story about Sens. Alexander and Graham's right-to-work legislation, I'd love to get a comment on the
ramifications of the language, both for labor and for the NLRB. Something similar to what we talked about over the phone:
That this is an attempt to mandate all states adopt right-to-work policies. That this legislation is really nothing new and has
been introduced by the GOP many times before.
To give you a better sense of what I'm looking into for my feature story: I'm writing about the natural oscillation of the
board and it's pro-union vs. pro-business decisions depending on which party is controlling the White House. My
argument is that the Boeing case provides ammunition to those that are trying to prove the NLRB has an activist agenda,
but in reality, the NLRB under Obama is no more pro-union than it was pro-business under the previous Bush
administration. The NLRB is also under much greater scrutiny on the whole due to the larger labor environment. I would
love to get a comment about the natural progression of the board becoming politicized, and how it's historically seesawed
between pro-union and pro-business decisions based on the administration.
Thanks so much and please let me know if you have any questions! I'm on my cell today: 617-633-0425
Best,
Lauren
Lauren Smith
Staff Writer
lsmith@cq.com
(o): 202-650-6604 **please note new number!
(m): 617-633-0425
Congressional Quarterly
77 K St., NE
Washington, DC 20002
NLRB-FOIA-U00003712
----------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal
views which are not the views of CQ Roll Call or its owner, The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network. For company information go to
http://legal.economistgroup.com.
NLRB-FOIA-U00003713
NLRB-FOIA-U00003714
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Importance:
Mattina, Celeste
Thursday, October 14, 2010 5:07 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
boeing
High
Your Boeing case is going to an Advice agenda on Monday afternoon, at 2 pm. the memo what you recommended and on what basis.
recommend changes to the agenda system, can you e mail me your advice submission.
NLRB-FOIA-U00003857
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste
Friday, October 15, 2010 7:15 AM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: boeing
Exemption 6 - Privacy
If we dont get to talk today, we should try to talk Monday morning, 202-273-
3700.
________________________________________
From: Ahearn, Richard L.
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:17 PM
To: Mattina, Celeste
Subject: Re: boeing
Will do; am in Portland today.
R
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
recommend changes to the agenda system, can you e mail me your advice submission.
NLRB-FOIA-U00003858
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Monday, December 06, 2010 6:11 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
Rich,
Did you want to talk about this today?
Thanks
Monday?
Rich,
Attached are the Unions responses to the Regions questions regarding the status of the S. Carolina
site, the surge line, the history of the unit, and the staffing of the new line.
David Campbell has asked if he should send a copy to Advice and if we will need affidavit testimony
regarding this data. Would you like to meet to discuss?
Thanks,
Dianne
Ms. Todd,
Attached is David Campbells response to your request for additional information.
Jude Bryan, Paralegal | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98119-3971; Phone:
206.285.2828 Ext. 21; Fax: 206-378-4132 | www.workerlaw.com
This communication is intended for a specific recipient and may be protected by the attorney client and work-product privilege.
If you receive this message in error, please permanently delete it and notify the sender.
NLRB-FOIA-U00003866
NLRB-FOIA-U00003867
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Monday, December 06, 2010 6:38 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
Jablonski, Colleen G.
RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
Okay!
Rich,
Did you want to talk about this today?
Thanks
Monday?
Rich,
Attached are the Unions responses to the Regions questions regarding the status of the S. Carolina
site, the surge line, the history of the unit, and the staffing of the new line.
David Campbell has asked if he should send a copy to Advice and if we will need affidavit testimony
regarding this data. Would you like to meet to discuss?
Thanks,
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00003868
Dianne
Ms. Todd,
Attached is David Campbells response to your request for additional information.
Jude Bryan, Paralegal | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98119-3971; Phone:
206.285.2828 Ext. 21; Fax: 206-378-4132 | www.workerlaw.com
This communication is intended for a specific recipient and may be protected by the attorney client and work-product privilege.
If you receive this message in error, please permanently delete it and notify the sender.
NLRB-FOIA-U00003869
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Mattina, Celeste J.
W ednesday, December 08, 2010 12:18 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : Boeing submission to the General Counsel
Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
William J. Kilberg
GIBSON DUNN
==============================================================================
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. then immediately delete this message.
============================================================================== If it has
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and
NLRB-FOIA-U00003870
NLRB-FOIA-U00003871
NLRB-FOIA-U00003871
NLRB-FOIA-U00003872
NLRB-FOIA-U00003872
NLRB-FOIA-U00003873
NLRB-FOIA-U00003873
NLRB-FOIA-U00003874
NLRB-FOIA-U00003874
NLRB-FOIA-U00003875
NLRB-FOIA-U00003875
NLRB-FOIA-U00003876
NLRB-FOIA-U00003876
NLRB-FOIA-U00003877
NLRB-FOIA-U00003877
NLRB-FOIA-U00003878
NLRB-FOIA-U00003878
NLRB-FOIA-U00003879
NLRB-FOIA-U00003879
NLRB-FOIA-U00003880
NLRB-FOIA-U00003880
NLRB-FOIA-U00003881
NLRB-FOIA-U00003881
NLRB-FOIA-U00003882
NLRB-FOIA-U00003882
NLRB-FOIA-U00003883
NLRB-FOIA-U00003883
NLRB-FOIA-U00003884
NLRB-FOIA-U00003884
NLRB-FOIA-U00003885
NLRB-FOIA-U00003885
NLRB-FOIA-U00003886
NLRB-FOIA-U00003886
NLRB-FOIA-U00003887
NLRB-FOIA-U00003887
NLRB-FOIA-U00003888
NLRB-FOIA-U00003888
NLRB-FOIA-U00003889
NLRB-FOIA-U00003889
NLRB-FOIA-U00003890
NLRB-FOIA-U00003890
NLRB-FOIA-U00003891
NLRB-FOIA-U00003891
NLRB-FOIA-U00003892
NLRB-FOIA-U00003892
NLRB-FOIA-U00003893
NLRB-FOIA-U00003893
NLRB-FOIA-U00003894
NLRB-FOIA-U00003894
NLRB-FOIA-U00003895
NLRB-FOIA-U00003895
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Mattina, Celeste J.
W ednesday, December 08, 2010 1:23 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Boeing submission to the General Counsel
She said, of course, thank you!, when I told her I sent it to you.
The good news is that they admit that the possibility of strikes was a significant consideration in their decision, the bad
news is that they claim that is legitimate and that in any event, there were other substantial economic considerations that
(presumably?) independently justified their decision.
Is there anything new here?
Exemption 5
I look forward to hearing your views on all of this; at the very least, it should be an interesting discussion
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
NLRB-FOIA-U00003898
William J. Kilberg
GIBSON DUNN
==============================================================================
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. then immediately delete this message.
============================================================================== If it has
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and
NLRB-FOIA-U00003899
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Farrell, Ellen
W ednesday, December 08, 2010 1:13 PM
Baniszewski, Joseph
FW : Boeing submission to the General Counsel
Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf
Joe
fyi
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
William J. Kilberg
GIBSON DUNN
==============================================================================
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. then immediately delete this message.
============================================================================== If it has
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and
NLRB-FOIA-U00003982
NLRB-FOIA-U00003983
NLRB-FOIA-U00003983
NLRB-FOIA-U00003984
NLRB-FOIA-U00003984
NLRB-FOIA-U00003985
NLRB-FOIA-U00003985
NLRB-FOIA-U00003986
NLRB-FOIA-U00003986
NLRB-FOIA-U00003987
NLRB-FOIA-U00003987
NLRB-FOIA-U00003988
NLRB-FOIA-U00003988
NLRB-FOIA-U00003989
NLRB-FOIA-U00003989
NLRB-FOIA-U00003990
NLRB-FOIA-U00003990
NLRB-FOIA-U00003991
NLRB-FOIA-U00003991
NLRB-FOIA-U00003992
NLRB-FOIA-U00003992
NLRB-FOIA-U00003993
NLRB-FOIA-U00003993
NLRB-FOIA-U00003994
NLRB-FOIA-U00003994
NLRB-FOIA-U00003995
NLRB-FOIA-U00003995
NLRB-FOIA-U00003996
NLRB-FOIA-U00003996
NLRB-FOIA-U00003997
NLRB-FOIA-U00003997
NLRB-FOIA-U00003998
NLRB-FOIA-U00003998
NLRB-FOIA-U00003999
NLRB-FOIA-U00003999
NLRB-FOIA-U00004000
NLRB-FOIA-U00004000
NLRB-FOIA-U00004001
NLRB-FOIA-U00004001
NLRB-FOIA-U00004002
NLRB-FOIA-U00004002
NLRB-FOIA-U00004003
NLRB-FOIA-U00004003
NLRB-FOIA-U00004004
NLRB-FOIA-U00004004
NLRB-FOIA-U00004005
NLRB-FOIA-U00004005
NLRB-FOIA-U00004006
NLRB-FOIA-U00004006
NLRB-FOIA-U00004007
NLRB-FOIA-U00004007
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
W ednesday, April 27, 2011 8:58 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
Re: Fwd: Chief Organizer Blog
Lafe: don't know if you might get this otherwise but thought I would pass on Wade Rathke's
thoughts...he was the former head of Acorn. Also spoke with a labor friend to day (atty with a
union) who unsolicited spoke about how impressed everyone is with all you have
been attempting to do and accomplishing.
Staff Attorney in Enfor...
From: To:
Staff Attorney in Enfor...
NLRB-FOIA-U00004019
Seattle As union membership falls to record lows and seems now headed to only
5% of private sector density and with recent assaults on public sector unionization may be pushed below 20% density
there soon as well, it is worth remembering that collective bargaining remains a clearly articulated, foundational
purpose of labor law ensconced directly in the language and purpose of the National Labor Relations Act almost 70
years ago. (For more on this see Bruce Boccardys on-line piece for Social Policy at: http://bit.ly/gP6wUg)
It almost seems that the NLRB and its General Counsel may have been reading the news from Wisconsin, Ohio, New
Hampshire and so many elsewheres, shaken themselves out of their slumber and realized that if they didnt get on
the stick there was no future for that bastion of labor bureaucracy and white collar legalisms. Im not sure this is a
development that will make the new business first White House happy, but the Board may have grown a set.
In a matter of days they have first issued a dramatic complaint arguing that Seattle-based Boeing was so blatant in
relocating production of one of its new planes to company friendly and union baiting South Carolina, that they
committed such severe unfair labor practices that the impact of the complaint could force the company to spend
hundreds of millions to repatriate the work back to union workers and a union contract in Seattle. This case is all the
talk here, and despite the companysunion membership, private sector, Bruce Boccardy, collective bar protestations,
the case is more solid that the business community would like to have the biscuit cookers believe. The NLRB for a
refreshing change is staking out a position that pissing all over the union and its legitimate section 7 rights to strike
and maintain its side of the bargain in collective agreements should not give a company a green light to run away to
greener, anti-union pastures.
Days later the NLRB announced that they are suing state governments in Arizona and North Dakota (whats wrong
with our brothers and sisters of the South here?!?) for promoting ballot propositions that would make card check
(voluntary, non-election procedures where majority support for unions is determined by showing the authorization
cards to employers or neutral third parties) illegal. Clearly state efforts to mess with long established recognition
procedures protected by federal law are preempted, but more usually the NLRB might have pussyfooted around and
waited until such measures were introduced and actually approved by voters before entering the lists and waging
their part of the fight. This one is a slam dunk it would see, though why the NLRB claimed it was not suing Utah and
South Dakota, which are trying to create the same card check bars, because they didnt have enough money, seems
odd.
I would also bet that another shoe is about to drop and that they will also issue a complaint in favor of the NFL
Players Association and against the owners in this marquee labor lockout and bargaining struggle, but no sense in
getting ahead of myself.
NLRB-FOIA-U00004020
The NLRB actually fulfilling its legal mandate and protecting collective bargaining and workers rights would be a
st
novel and refreshing change in the early days of the 21
Century during this dark night for all of us and our unions.
You are subscribed to email updates from Wade Rathke: Chief Organizer Blog
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
NLRB-FOIA-U00004021
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5
Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not
Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004022
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:45 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Re: anybody there???
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
It needs to be shorter
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Not at my desk but available by bb e-mail or phone in about 15 when I get off the metro. Thinking through what you sent
over now.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004070
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:49 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
RE: anybody there???
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
It needs to be shorter
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Not at my desk but available by bb e-mail or phone in about 15 when I get off the metro. Thinking through what you sent
over now.
NLRB-FOIA-U00004071
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004072
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:52 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Re: anybody there???
Mikey likes it
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
It needs to be shorter
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004073
Not at my desk but available by bb e-mail or phone in about 15 when I get off the metro. Thinking through what you sent
over now.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004074
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:57 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Re: anybody there???
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Mikey likes it
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
It needs to be shorter
NLRB-FOIA-U00004075
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Not at my desk but available by bb e-mail or phone in about 15 when I get off the metro. Thinking through what you sent
over now.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004076
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, April 28, 2011 6:00 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : anybody there???
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Exemption 5
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Mikey likes it
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004077
To: Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.; Farrell, Ellen
Subject: Re: anybody there???
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
It needs to be shorter
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Not at my desk but available by bb e-mail or phone in about 15 when I get off the metro. Thinking through what you sent
over now.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004078
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011 6:12 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
FW : huffingtonpost
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004079
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:43 PM
Liebman, W ilma B.; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
from cnn - state of the union - producer
Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5
Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not
Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004101
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Liebman, W ilma B.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:53 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer
Exemption 5
Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5
Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not
Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004102
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Liebman, W ilma B.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:54 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose; Schiff, Robert
RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer
PS one of the stories I read last week did say that when asked the WH said they werent involved, it
was the NLRB.
Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5
Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not
Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004103
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Schiff, Robert
Thursday, April 28, 2011 12:58 PM
Liebman, W ilma B.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5
Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not
Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004104
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Thursday, April 28, 2011 1:09 PM
Schiff, Robert; Liebman, W ilma B.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5
Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not
Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00004105
NLRB-FOIA-U00004106
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Todd, Dianne
Friday, December 03, 2010 5:25 PM
Jablonski, Colleen G.; Ahearn, Richard L.
FW : IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
2010 12_03 Ltr to Todd.pdf
Rich,
Attached are the Unions responses to the Regions questions regarding the status of the S. Carolina
site, the surge line, the history of the unit, and the staffing of the new line.
David Campbell has asked if he should send a copy to Advice and if we will need affidavit testimony
regarding this data. Would you like to meet to discuss?
Thanks,
Dianne
Ms. Todd,
Attached is David Campbells response to your request for additional information.
Jude Bryan, Paralegal | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98119-3971; Phone:
206.285.2828 Ext. 21; Fax: 206-378-4132 | www.workerlaw.com
This communication is intended for a specific recipient and may be protected by the attorney client and work-product privilege.
If you receive this message in error, please permanently delete it and notify the sender.
NLRB-FOIA-U00004147
NLRB-FOIA-U00004148
NLRB-FOIA-U00004148
NLRB-FOIA-U00004149
NLRB-FOIA-U00004149
NLRB-FOIA-U00004150
NLRB-FOIA-U00004150
NLRB-FOIA-U00004151
NLRB-FOIA-U00004151
NLRB-FOIA-U00004152
NLRB-FOIA-U00004152
NLRB-FOIA-U00004153
NLRB-FOIA-U00004153
NLRB-FOIA-U00004154
NLRB-FOIA-U00004154
NLRB-FOIA-U00004155
NLRB-FOIA-U00004155
NLRB-FOIA-U00004156
NLRB-FOIA-U00004156
NLRB-FOIA-U00004157
NLRB-FOIA-U00004157
NLRB-FOIA-U00004158
NLRB-FOIA-U00004158
NLRB-FOIA-U00004159
NLRB-FOIA-U00004159
NLRB-FOIA-U00004160
NLRB-FOIA-U00004160
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, December 03, 2010 7:16 PM
Todd, Dianne; Jablonski, Colleen G.
RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
Monday?
Rich,
Attached are the Unions responses to the Regions questions regarding the status of the S. Carolina
site, the surge line, the history of the unit, and the staffing of the new line.
David Campbell has asked if he should send a copy to Advice and if we will need affidavit testimony
regarding this data. Would you like to meet to discuss?
Thanks,
Dianne
Ms. Todd,
Attached is David Campbells response to your request for additional information.
Jude Bryan, Paralegal | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98119-3971; Phone:
206.285.2828 Ext. 21; Fax: 206-378-4132 | www.workerlaw.com
This communication is intended for a specific recipient and may be protected by the attorney client and work-product privilege.
If you receive this message in error, please permanently delete it and notify the sender.
NLRB-FOIA-U00004161
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:18 PM
Mattina, Celeste
Re: boeing
recommend changes to the agenda system, can you e mail me your advice submission.
NLRB-FOIA-U00004217
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:54 AM
Omberg, Bob; Katz, Judy
RE: save the date -- Boeing
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Boeings counsel has scheduled a meeting with Advice for Wednesday, November 10.
We are looking at November 29 and 30 as the potential dates for their meeting with the General Counsel.
NLRB-FOIA-U00004234
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Friday, December 03, 2010 7:15 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; W illen, Debra L; Omberg, Bob; Katz, Judy
Baniszewski, Joseph
IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
2010 12_03 Ltr to Todd.pdf
FYI
Ms. Todd,
Attached is David Campbells response to your request for additional information.
Jude Bryan, Paralegal | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98119-3971; Phone:
206.285.2828 Ext. 21; Fax: 206-378-4132 | www.workerlaw.com
This communication is intended for a specific recipient and may be protected by the attorney client and work-product privilege.
If you receive this message in error, please permanently delete it and notify the sender.
NLRB-FOIA-U00004237
NLRB-FOIA-U00004238
NLRB-FOIA-U00004238
NLRB-FOIA-U00004239
NLRB-FOIA-U00004239
NLRB-FOIA-U00004240
NLRB-FOIA-U00004240
NLRB-FOIA-U00004241
NLRB-FOIA-U00004241
NLRB-FOIA-U00004242
NLRB-FOIA-U00004242
NLRB-FOIA-U00004243
NLRB-FOIA-U00004243
NLRB-FOIA-U00004244
NLRB-FOIA-U00004244
NLRB-FOIA-U00004245
NLRB-FOIA-U00004245
NLRB-FOIA-U00004246
NLRB-FOIA-U00004246
NLRB-FOIA-U00004247
NLRB-FOIA-U00004247
NLRB-FOIA-U00004248
NLRB-FOIA-U00004248
NLRB-FOIA-U00004249
NLRB-FOIA-U00004249
NLRB-FOIA-U00004250
NLRB-FOIA-U00004250
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
W illen, Debra L
W ednesday, December 08, 2010 1:25 PM
Katz, Judy; Omberg, Bob
FW : Boeing submission to the General Counsel
Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf
________________________________________
From: Sophir, Jayme
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:24 PM
To: Willen, Debra L; Szapiro, Miriam
Subject: FW: Boeing submission to the General Counsel
________________________________
From: Farrell, Ellen
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:18 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Colangelo, David (Advice); Marx, Eric C.
Cc: Solomon, Lafe E.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Subject: FW: Boeing submission to the General Counsel
Did I miss anyone?
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Division of Advice, NLRB
202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
________________________________
From: Kilberg P.C., William [mailto:WKilberg@gibsondunn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 10:48 AM
To: Farrell, Ellen
Cc: Baumeister, Bryan H; Clarke, Joan C; Gerry, Brett C; rhankins@mckennalong.com; McGill,
Matthew D.; Blankenstein, Paul; Martin, Christopher J.
Subject: Boeing submission to the General Counsel
Ellen:
As promised.
Best,
Bill
William J. Kilberg
GIBSON DUNN
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306 Tel +1 202.955.8573 Fax +1
202.530.9559 WKilberg@gibsondunn.com www.gibsondunn.com
<<Ltr to Lafe Solomon.pdf>>
==============================================================================
This message may contain confidential and privileged information.
1
If it has
NLRB-FOIA-U00004251
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and
then immediately delete this message.
==============================================================================
NLRB-FOIA-U00004252
NLRB-FOIA-U00004253
NLRB-FOIA-U00004253
NLRB-FOIA-U00004254
NLRB-FOIA-U00004254
NLRB-FOIA-U00004255
NLRB-FOIA-U00004255
NLRB-FOIA-U00004256
NLRB-FOIA-U00004256
NLRB-FOIA-U00004257
NLRB-FOIA-U00004257
NLRB-FOIA-U00004258
NLRB-FOIA-U00004258
NLRB-FOIA-U00004259
NLRB-FOIA-U00004259
NLRB-FOIA-U00004260
NLRB-FOIA-U00004260
NLRB-FOIA-U00004261
NLRB-FOIA-U00004261
NLRB-FOIA-U00004262
NLRB-FOIA-U00004262
NLRB-FOIA-U00004263
NLRB-FOIA-U00004263
NLRB-FOIA-U00004264
NLRB-FOIA-U00004264
NLRB-FOIA-U00004265
NLRB-FOIA-U00004265
NLRB-FOIA-U00004266
NLRB-FOIA-U00004266
NLRB-FOIA-U00004267
NLRB-FOIA-U00004267
NLRB-FOIA-U00004268
NLRB-FOIA-U00004268
NLRB-FOIA-U00004269
NLRB-FOIA-U00004269
NLRB-FOIA-U00004270
NLRB-FOIA-U00004270
NLRB-FOIA-U00004271
NLRB-FOIA-U00004271
NLRB-FOIA-U00004272
NLRB-FOIA-U00004272
NLRB-FOIA-U00004273
NLRB-FOIA-U00004273
NLRB-FOIA-U00004274
NLRB-FOIA-U00004274
NLRB-FOIA-U00004275
NLRB-FOIA-U00004275
NLRB-FOIA-U00004276
NLRB-FOIA-U00004276
NLRB-FOIA-U00004277
NLRB-FOIA-U00004277
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Thursday, April 28, 2011 1:09 PM
Schiff, Robert; Liebman, W ilma B.; Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: from cnn - state of the union - producer
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Exemption 5
Hi I got this message just now from the executive producer at CNNs State of the Union Sunday show (Candy Crowley).
I wanted you to be aware that they are trying to get a response from the WH since Graham raised the issue. I would
hope the WH would send them right back to us and say theyre not involved in NLRB decisions.
Exemption 5
Theyre also checking up with Boeing on our statement that we did not
Nancy,
We clearly will do something on Sunday. We knew that Sen. Grahams statement wasnt going to be the last word. His
direct shot is at the White House whom we are still asking for a response. Were talking to Boeing and Sen. Grahams
office as well. I will get back with you before the end of business Friday to let you know where things stand and can
probably avoid messing up your weekend.
Tom
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00004424
NLRB-FOIA-U00004425
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kearney, Barry J.
Thursday, April 28, 2011 5:53 PM
Sophir, Jayme
Fw: Boeing - anybody there???
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Mikey likes it
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
It needs to be shorter
NLRB-FOIA-U00004521
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Not at my desk but available by bb e-mail or phone in about 15 when I get off the metro. Thinking through what you sent
over now.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004522
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farrell, Ellen
Tuesday, December 07, 2010 3:39 PM
W illen, Debra L; Kearney, Barry J.; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Katz, Judy; Omberg, Bob
RE: Boeing
I got a call from Paul Blankenstein at Gibson Dunn. position statement and we will not have it today. Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Division of Advice, NLRB
202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Willen, Debra L
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 3:20 PM
To: Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen; Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Katz, Judy; Omberg,
Bob
Subject: Boeing
I've just finished reviewing the new book Miriam found entitled "Turbulence: Boeing and the
State of American Workers and Managers."
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00004555
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
Thursday, December 09, 2010 11:23 AM
Sophir, Jayme; Szapiro, Miriam; Kearney, Barry J.; Farrell, Ellen
Katz, Judy; Omberg, Bob
RE: Boeing submission to the General Counsel
Union counsel called me earlier this week; he is preparing a new position statement on 10(j) and a paper on the Unions
inherently destructive theory of violation. He asked me to get back to him if Boeings submission raised any questions
that he should address. After reviewing the Boeing submission, I talked to Miriam briefly and we were thinking that it
Exemption 5 would be useful I would like to ask him to
Exemption 5
Any thoughts?
Thanks, Deb
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
William J. Kilberg
GIBSON DUNN
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00004608
==============================================================================
This message may contain confidential and privileged information. then immediately delete this message.
============================================================================== If it has
been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and
NLRB-FOIA-U00004609
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Monday, December 06, 2010 6:32 PM
Todd, Dianne
RE: IAM 751 v. Boeing, Case No. 19-CA-32431
Rich,
Did you want to talk about this today?
Thanks
Monday?
Rich,
Attached are the Unions responses to the Regions questions regarding the status of the S. Carolina
site, the surge line, the history of the unit, and the staffing of the new line.
David Campbell has asked if he should send a copy to Advice and if we will need affidavit testimony
regarding this data. Would you like to meet to discuss?
Thanks,
Dianne
NLRB-FOIA-U00004653
Ms. Todd,
Attached is David Campbells response to your request for additional information.
Jude Bryan, Paralegal | Schwerin Campbell Barnard Iglitzin & Lavitt LLP | 18 West Mercer Street, Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98119-3971; Phone:
206.285.2828 Ext. 21; Fax: 206-378-4132 | www.workerlaw.com
This communication is intended for a specific recipient and may be protected by the attorney client and work-product privilege.
If you receive this message in error, please permanently delete it and notify the sender.
NLRB-FOIA-U00004654
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Thursday, May 05, 2011 11:58 AM
Garza, Jose
Kearney, Barry J.; Abruzzo, Jennifer
Re: House Committee on Education and the W orkforce Oversight Request
image001.png; image002.png; image003.png; image004.png; image005.png
I am on the plane and it is a 3 hour flight. I am willing to call around 4 your time but feel free to decide everything without
me. I trust my team. . Thanks, Lafe
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Exemption 5
I'm on my way to dallas. We can talk by phone if you are available. I forwarded the request to barry kearney, jennifer,
celeste, and ahearn.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Lafe,
I'm on my way into the office now. Do you have time to meet about this today?
Thank you,
Jose
NLRB-FOIA-U00004688
Attached is a request for documents and communications relating to April 20, 2011 complaint against The Boeing
Corporation. We look forward to your timely and complete response.
Marvin E. Kaplan
Professional Staff Member
Committee on Education and the Workforce
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202)225-4527
NLRB-FOIA-U00004689
NLRB-FOIA-U00004690
NLRB-FOIA-U00004691
NLRB-FOIA-U00004692
NLRB-FOIA-U00004693
NLRB-FOIA-U00004694
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Thursday, May 05, 2011 12:05 PM
Mattina, Celeste J.
FW : House Committee on Education and the W orkforce Oversight Request
image006.gif; image007.gif; image008.gif; image009.gif; image010.gif
I am on the plane and it is a 3 hour flight. I am willing to call around 4 your time but feel free to decide everything without
Exemption 5 me. I trust my team. Thanks, Lafe
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
I'm on my way to dallas. We can talk by phone if you are available. I forwarded the request to barry kearney, jennifer,
celeste, and ahearn.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
NLRB-FOIA-U00004695
Lafe,
I'm on my way into the office now. Do you have time to meet about this today?
Thank you,
Jose
Attached is a request for documents and communications relating to April 20, 2011 complaint against The Boeing
Corporation. We look forward to your timely and complete response.
Marvin E. Kaplan
Professional Staff Member
Committee on Education and the Workforce
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202)225-4527
NLRB-FOIA-U00004696
NLRB-FOIA-U00004697
NLRB-FOIA-U00004698
NLRB-FOIA-U00004699
NLRB-FOIA-U00004700
NLRB-FOIA-U00004701
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:15 PM
Kearney, Barry J.; Mattina, Celeste J.
Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: House Committee on Education and the W orkforce Oversight Request
image006.gif; image007.gif; image008.gif; image009.gif; image010.gif
I am on the plane and it is a 3 hour flight. I am willing to call around 4 your time but feel free to decide everything without
me. I trust my team. Thanks, Lafe
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Exemption 5
I'm on my way to dallas. We can talk by phone if you are available. I forwarded the request to barry kearney, jennifer,
celeste, and ahearn.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
NLRB-FOIA-U00004702
Lafe,
I'm on my way into the office now. Do you have time to meet about this today?
Thank you,
Jose
Attached is a request for documents and communications relating to April 20, 2011 complaint against The Boeing
Corporation. We look forward to your timely and complete response.
Marvin E. Kaplan
Professional Staff Member
Committee on Education and the Workforce
2181 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202)225-4527
NLRB-FOIA-U00004703
NLRB-FOIA-U00004704
NLRB-FOIA-U00004705
NLRB-FOIA-U00004706
NLRB-FOIA-U00004707
NLRB-FOIA-U00004708
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:26 PM
Garza, Jose
Re: Graham response
Thanks. BTW on the Rehberg request, Lafe agrees that we should send our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in
response.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/21/boeing-union-files-ethics-complaint-against-sen-gr/
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-U00004718
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:27 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE: Graham response
Thanks. BTW on the Rehberg request, Lafe agrees that we should send our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in
response.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/21/boeing-union-files-ethics-complaint-against-sen-gr/
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-U00004719
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:35 PM
Garza, Jose
Re: Graham response
Thanks. BTW on the Rehberg request, Lafe agrees that we should send our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in
response.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/21/boeing-union-files-ethics-complaint-against-sen-gr/
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-U00004720
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:45 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE: Graham response
Thanks!
Thanks. BTW on the Rehberg request, Lafe agrees that we should send our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in
response.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/21/boeing-union-files-ethics-complaint-against-sen-gr/
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-U00004721
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:53 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Memo to Lafe from Advice
Rich,
I am out of the office from December 23 through January 3 then Im back in the office. See you
tomorrow?
D
D, Many thanks; btw...can you give me your schedule in the next few weeks...in case Boeing offers to present witnesses
and GC agrees?
Many thanks.
R
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Rich,
We have an affidavit from employee Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D) who said that he read Boeings memo 787
Second Line
Questions and Answers for Managers 10/28/9 at the time it was released as did the other Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D) employees in his unit.
Good luck!
Dianne
Dianne, Colleen,
Do we have a response to the question in fn. 24? Evidence?
Many thanks.
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00004736
Rich
Richard L Ahearn
Regional Director, Region 19, Seattle
206 220 6310
NLRB-FOIA-U00004737
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Farrell, Ellen
Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:15 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
RE: Boeing
ADV.19-CA-32431.GCAgenda.Boeing.dlw.doc
Rich
This is our GC Agenda memo; I think its what youre looking for.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Division of Advice, NLRB
202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
Ellen, I want to prepare for next weeks meeting. I thought I had received the Advice memo, but cant locate it (I could
only find a proposed interim order from Deborah Willen) Could you e mail it to me?
Many thanks.
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-U00004814
NLRB-FOIA-U00004815
NLRB-FOIA-U00004815
NLRB-FOIA-U00004816
NLRB-FOIA-U00004816
NLRB-FOIA-U00004817
NLRB-FOIA-U00004817
NLRB-FOIA-U00004818
NLRB-FOIA-U00004818
NLRB-FOIA-U00004819
NLRB-FOIA-U00004819
NLRB-FOIA-U00004820
NLRB-FOIA-U00004820
NLRB-FOIA-U00004821
NLRB-FOIA-U00004821
NLRB-FOIA-U00004822
NLRB-FOIA-U00004822
NLRB-FOIA-U00004823
NLRB-FOIA-U00004823
NLRB-FOIA-U00004824
NLRB-FOIA-U00004824
NLRB-FOIA-U00004825
NLRB-FOIA-U00004825
NLRB-FOIA-U00004826
NLRB-FOIA-U00004826
NLRB-FOIA-U00004827
NLRB-FOIA-U00004827
NLRB-FOIA-U00004828
NLRB-FOIA-U00004828
NLRB-FOIA-U00004829
NLRB-FOIA-U00004829
NLRB-FOIA-U00004830
NLRB-FOIA-U00004830
NLRB-FOIA-U00004831
NLRB-FOIA-U00004831
NLRB-FOIA-U00004832
NLRB-FOIA-U00004832
NLRB-FOIA-U00004833
NLRB-FOIA-U00004833
NLRB-FOIA-U00004834
NLRB-FOIA-U00004834
NLRB-FOIA-U00004835
NLRB-FOIA-U00004835
NLRB-FOIA-U00004836
NLRB-FOIA-U00004836
NLRB-FOIA-U00004837
NLRB-FOIA-U00004837
NLRB-FOIA-U00004838
NLRB-FOIA-U00004838
NLRB-FOIA-U00004839
NLRB-FOIA-U00004839
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ferguson, John H.
Thursday, October 07, 2010 3:55 PM
Kearney, Barry J.
RE: Boeing as a runaway shop?
Sure I would like to see the memo when it is doneas indicated in my email, there is a lot to get your head around in this
area, and I need to dig deeper.
Whatever Scalia does will be ugly, combining Milwaukee Springs II mid contract relocation bargaining and the hardnosed
HK Porter/TWA/Lockout cases perspective that the free play of economic weapons notion makes it easy to understand
why unions want to strike in summer and employers want to lockout in winter and why the IAM loves Seattle and Boeings
new love is Alabama. So far as Scalia is concerned, the fact that one side or the other is seeking higher ground on which
to fight, having been earlier bloodied in the valley, is in the nature of economic warfare and of no concern to the courts.
Exemption 5
Boeing doesnt at least for now contend that striking makes for higher labor costs and that is why they are moving. In fact
it is cheaper and more efficient to put the work in Puget Sound. They contend that strikes make it harder for them to
deliver planes to their customer and that is a sufficient business justification to move because the Union wont agree now
mid-contract to a 22 year no strike pledge. What do you think Scalia will do with that? Do you want to see the memo
when it is done?
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00004848
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00004849
Microsoft Outlook
Non-Responsive
I just got a call from a reporter at the Charleston SC paper. Apparently DeMint announced this was going to happen in
Charleston yesterday so they were geared up.
Should be go ahead with the release and fact sheet?
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004891
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Monday, June 06, 2011 9:17 AM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
RE: Congressman Ross
Good morning,
I spoke with the staffer, and all she wanted to know was whether Boeing would have an opportunity to submit evidence
and testimony at the hearing, which I said they did. I told her to be sure to call me or Jose with any other questions, but it
seemed to be a very limited query.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
NLRB-FOIA-U00004899
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Garza, Jose
Monday, June 06, 2011 9:49 AM
Cleeland, Nancy; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: npr Boeing NLRB
image001.gif
Exemption 5
Hi I was about to send this and then thought we should probably discuss first.
Hi Wendy,
Im not sure what this labor historian is talking about. We issue complaints all the time having to do with the issue of
retaliation. As part of our case, Im sure our attorneys will discuss precedent. But again, its not something were going to
get into ahead of the hearing.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
A labor historian told me that the NLRB used to bring suits like this
( and a case like this ag a high
Hi Wendy, Here are a couple of links related to committee requests for information I mentioned earlier.
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00004903
http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1290&Itemid=29
http://edworkforce.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=242822
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004904
NLRB-FOIA-U00004905
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Monday, June 06, 2011 9:53 AM
Garza, Jose; Solomon, Lafe E.
RE: npr Boeing NLRB
image001.gif
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Hi I was about to send this and then thought we should probably discuss first.
Hi Wendy,
Im not sure what this labor historian is talking about. We issue complaints all the time having to do with the issue of
retaliation. As part of our case, Im sure our attorneys will discuss precedent. But again, its not something were going to
get into ahead of the hearing.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
A labor historian told me that the NLRB used to bring suits like this
NLRB-FOIA-U00004906
When was the last time the Board brought a case like this profile employer)
Hi Wendy, Here are a couple of links related to committee requests for information I mentioned earlier.
http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1290&Itemid=29
http://edworkforce.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=242822
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004907
NLRB-FOIA-U00004908
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Monday, June 06, 2011 10:11 AM
Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose
RE: npr Boeing NLRB
image001.gif
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Hi I was about to send this and then thought we should probably discuss first.
Hi Wendy,
Im not sure what this labor historian is talking about. We issue complaints all the time having to do with the issue of
retaliation. As part of our case, Im sure our attorneys will discuss precedent. But again, its not something were going to
get into ahead of the hearing.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004909
A labor historian told me that the NLRB used to bring suits like this
( and a case like this ag a high
Hi Wendy, Here are a couple of links related to committee requests for information I mentioned earlier.
http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1290&Itemid=29
http://edworkforce.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=242822
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004910
NLRB-FOIA-U00004911
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Cleeland, Nancy
Monday, June 06, 2011 10:21 AM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
RE: npr Boeing NLRB
image001.gif
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
Hi I was about to send this and then thought we should probably discuss first.
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00004912
Exemption 5
o
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
A labor historian told me that the NLRB used to bring suits like this
( and a case like this ag a high
Hi Wendy, Here are a couple of links related to committee requests for information I mentioned earlier.
http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1290&Itemid=29
http://edworkforce.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=242822
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
NLRB-FOIA-U00004913
NLRB-FOIA-U00004914
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:20 PM
Cleeland, Nancy; Garza, Jose
Re: request re Boeing article
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Fyi, I know your both out of the office but any thoughts would be appreciated.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Nancy,
Im taking the somewhat unusual step of sharing an email I sent yesterday to Sen. DeMints
communications director. As youll see, it provides the comments of a former NLRB chairman (who you might
know, or know of) who disagrees with Lafe Solomons complaint against Boeing on the merits, but also strongly
criticizes Republican lawmakers for politicizing the NLRB process and interfering with an independent agency.
Could I please get a statement from you or (preferably) from Lafe on this? The article Im working on is a
fairly big enterprise setup for the ALJ hearing in Seattle on Tuesday; its intended to be a broad piece that will
pull things together and help the reader who hasnt been following all the ins and outs of this case the last
couple months. I know that Lafe put out a statement last month, but I would very much appreciate something
fresher and perhaps more focused to respond to Gould below. I.e., why LS believes that his complaint is
justified.
Im writing tomorrow morning. Appreciate your help.
(And grateful if you dont share this email outside your office.)
Jim
NLRB-FOIA-U00004928
Hey, W esley,
Im doing a pretty big article to set up next Tuesdays administrative law judge hearing in Seattle on the Boeing-
NLRB case. I did a long interview with W illiam Gould, who chaired the NLRB under Clinton and is now a Stanford law
professor.
Gould thinks Lafe Solomon is wrong on the merits of his complaint i.e., Gould doesnt think that Boeing violated
labor laws by opening the S.C. 787 plant. At the same time, Gould came down very hard on JDM he specifically cited
Sen. DeMints use of thuggery and accused him of politicizing the process to a dangerous extreme. He said the call by
JDM and others for Obama to intervene is unprecedented and would undermine the rule of law. He said Democratic and
Republican presidents for decades havent intervened in NLRB proceedings.
Anyway, could I please get a response from JDM to this claim that he is politicizing the work of an independent
executive agency and thereby undermining the rule of law that separates the United States from most countries?
I know this sounds loaded, but dont shoot the messenger :>) Im just forwarding what this fellow said.
(Please dont share this email or its contents outside your office.)
Thanks.
Jim
NLRB-FOIA-U00004929
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:24 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
Re: request re Boeing article
Lafe, I am meeting with Celeste, Jennifer, and Barry. Could you give us a call asap? We would to run a few proposals
past you.
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Fyi, I know your both out of the office but any thoughts would be appreciated.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Nancy,
Im taking the somewhat unusual step of sharing an email I sent yesterday to Sen. DeMints
communications director. As youll see, it provides the comments of a former NLRB chairman (who you might
know, or know of) who disagrees with Lafe Solomons complaint against Boeing on the merits, but also strongly
criticizes Republican lawmakers for politicizing the NLRB process and interfering with an independent agency.
Could I please get a statement from you or (preferably) from Lafe on this? The article Im working on is a
fairly big enterprise setup for the ALJ hearing in Seattle on Tuesday; its intended to be a broad piece that will
pull things together and help the reader who hasnt been following all the ins and outs of this case the last
couple months. I know that Lafe put out a statement last month, but I would very much appreciate something
fresher and perhaps more focused to respond to Gould below. I.e., why LS believes that his complaint is
justified.
Im writing tomorrow morning. Appreciate your help.
NLRB-FOIA-U00004930
(And grateful if you dont share this email outside your office.)
Jim
Hey, W esley,
Im doing a pretty big article to set up next Tuesdays administrative law judge hearing in Seattle on the Boeing-
NLRB case. I did a long interview with W illiam Gould, who chaired the NLRB under Clinton and is now a Stanford law
professor.
Gould thinks Lafe Solomon is wrong on the merits of his complaint i.e., Gould doesnt think that Boeing violated
labor laws by opening the S.C. 787 plant. At the same time, Gould came down very hard on JDM he specifically cited
Sen. DeMints use of thuggery and accused him of politicizing the process to a dangerous extreme. He said the call by
JDM and others for Obama to intervene is unprecedented and would undermine the rule of law. He said Democratic and
Republican presidents for decades havent intervened in NLRB proceedings.
Anyway, could I please get a response from JDM to this claim that he is politicizing the work of an independent
executive agency and thereby undermining the rule of law that separates the United States from most countries?
I know this sounds loaded, but dont shoot the messenger :>) Im just forwarding what this fellow said.
(Please dont share this email or its contents outside your office.)
Thanks.
Jim
NLRB-FOIA-U00004931
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cleeland, Nancy
Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:25 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.; Garza, Jose
RE: request re Boeing article
Exemption 5
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Fyi, I know your both out of the office but any thoughts would be appreciated.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Nancy,
Im taking the somewhat unusual step of sharing an email I sent yesterday to Sen. DeMints
communications director. As youll see, it provides the comments of a former NLRB chairman (who you might
know, or know of) who disagrees with Lafe Solomons complaint against Boeing on the merits, but also strongly
criticizes Republican lawmakers for politicizing the NLRB process and interfering with an independent agency.
Could I please get a statement from you or (preferably) from Lafe on this? The article Im working on is a
fairly big enterprise setup for the ALJ hearing in Seattle on Tuesday; its intended to be a broad piece that will
pull things together and help the reader who hasnt been following all the ins and outs of this case the last
couple months. I know that Lafe put out a statement last month, but I would very much appreciate something
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00004932
fresher and perhaps more focused to respond to Gould below. I.e., why LS believes that his complaint is
justified.
Im writing tomorrow morning. Appreciate your help.
(And grateful if you dont share this email outside your office.)
Jim
Hey, W esley,
Im doing a pretty big article to set up next Tuesdays administrative law judge hearing in Seattle on the Boeing-
NLRB case. I did a long interview with W illiam Gould, who chaired the NLRB under Clinton and is now a Stanford law
professor.
Gould thinks Lafe Solomon is wrong on the merits of his complaint i.e., Gould doesnt think that Boeing violated
labor laws by opening the S.C. 787 plant. At the same time, Gould came down very hard on JDM he specifically cited
Sen. DeMints use of thuggery and accused him of politicizing the process to a dangerous extreme. He said the call by
JDM and others for Obama to intervene is unprecedented and would undermine the rule of law. He said Democratic and
Republican presidents for decades havent intervened in NLRB proceedings.
Anyway, could I please get a response from JDM to this claim that he is politicizing the work of an independent
executive agency and thereby undermining the rule of law that separates the United States from most countries?
I know this sounds loaded, but dont shoot the messenger :>) Im just forwarding what this fellow said.
(Please dont share this email or its contents outside your office.)
Thanks.
Jim
NLRB-FOIA-U00004933
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Abruzzo, Jennifer
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:35 PM
Garza, Jose
Re: Graham response
Thanks. BTW on the Rehberg request, Lafe agrees that we should send our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in
response.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/21/boeing-union-files-ethics-complaint-against-sen-gr/
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-U00004940
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:45 PM
Abruzzo, Jennifer
RE: Graham response
Thanks!
Thanks. BTW on the Rehberg request, Lafe agrees that we should send our Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss in
response.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jun/21/boeing-union-files-ethics-complaint-against-sen-gr/
Jose P. Garza
Special Counsel for
Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs
National Labor Relations Board
202-273-0013
NLRB-FOIA-U00004941
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Todd, Dianne
W ednesday, December 15, 2010 3:17 PM
Ahearn, Richard L.
Jablonski, Colleen G.
Boeing follow up regarding note taking during neg.
Rich,
Dave Campbell called today and told me that he spoke with
Exemption 6, 7(C) and 7(D)
He is still trying to get hold of Exemption 6, 7(C) and 7(D) Talk to you soon!
Dianne
NLRB-FOIA-U00004953
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Young, Jacqueline
W ednesday, June 29, 2011 3:02 PM
Kearney, Barry J.
FW : FOIA requests
Non-Responsive
Gary These appear to be the pending requests and our internal due dates. Let us know if you need any other
information. Linda
Jolynne Miller
2011-646 and 2011-669 Crossroads GPS requests include
Non-Responsive
4. 5.
all communications to or from the General Counsels office related to the Complaint and Notice of Hearing
issued by the NLRB against The Boeing Company, Case No. 19-CA-32431, on April 20, 2011.
all communications between the General Counsels office and NLRB board members or their staffs related to
the Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued by the NLRB against The Boeing Company, Case No. 19-CA-
32431, on April 20, 2011.
Non-Responsive
7. all communications between the NLRB General Counsels office and the Boards members or their staffs
related to the Complaint and Notice of Hearing issued by the NLRB against The Boeing Company, Case No.
19-CA-32431, on April 20, 2011.
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
Linda Kahn
2011-654 Judicial Watch
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00004963
Non-Responsive
Linda Kahn
2011-683
Non-Responsive
Linda Kahn
2011-0682 Judicial W atch
Non-Responsive
N...
NLRB-FOIA-U00004964
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:17 PM
Jablonski, Colleen G.; Todd, Dianne; Pomerantz, Anne
FW : Boeing
ADV.19-CA-32431.GCAgenda.Boeing.dlw.doc
Rich
This is our GC Agenda memo; I think its what youre looking for.
Ellen
Ellen Farrell
Deputy Associate General Counsel
Division of Advice, NLRB
202-273-3810
Ellen.Farrell@nlrb.gov
Ellen, I want to prepare for next weeks meeting. I thought I had received the Advice memo, but cant locate it (I could
only find a proposed interim order from Deborah Willen) Could you e mail it to me?
Many thanks.
Rich
NLRB-FOIA-U00005027
NLRB-FOIA-U00005028
NLRB-FOIA-U00005028
NLRB-FOIA-U00005029
NLRB-FOIA-U00005029
NLRB-FOIA-U00005030
NLRB-FOIA-U00005030
NLRB-FOIA-U00005031
NLRB-FOIA-U00005031
NLRB-FOIA-U00005032
NLRB-FOIA-U00005032
NLRB-FOIA-U00005033
NLRB-FOIA-U00005033
NLRB-FOIA-U00005034
NLRB-FOIA-U00005034
NLRB-FOIA-U00005035
NLRB-FOIA-U00005035
NLRB-FOIA-U00005036
NLRB-FOIA-U00005036
NLRB-FOIA-U00005037
NLRB-FOIA-U00005037
NLRB-FOIA-U00005038
NLRB-FOIA-U00005038
NLRB-FOIA-U00005039
NLRB-FOIA-U00005039
NLRB-FOIA-U00005040
NLRB-FOIA-U00005040
NLRB-FOIA-U00005041
NLRB-FOIA-U00005041
NLRB-FOIA-U00005042
NLRB-FOIA-U00005042
NLRB-FOIA-U00005043
NLRB-FOIA-U00005043
NLRB-FOIA-U00005044
NLRB-FOIA-U00005044
NLRB-FOIA-U00005045
NLRB-FOIA-U00005045
NLRB-FOIA-U00005046
NLRB-FOIA-U00005046
NLRB-FOIA-U00005047
NLRB-FOIA-U00005047
NLRB-FOIA-U00005048
NLRB-FOIA-U00005048
NLRB-FOIA-U00005049
NLRB-FOIA-U00005049
NLRB-FOIA-U00005050
NLRB-FOIA-U00005050
NLRB-FOIA-U00005051
NLRB-FOIA-U00005051
NLRB-FOIA-U00005052
NLRB-FOIA-U00005052
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Exemption 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing lawyer rejects NLRB charges in 787 case
In a forceful letter to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), top Boeing lawyer Michael
Luttig rejected the labor agency's complaint against the company's opening of a South
Carolina 787 plant, writing that its charges "fundamentally misquote or mischaracterize
statements by Boeing executives."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014961873_boeing05.html
======================================================================
TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SEATTLE TIMES PRINT EDITION
Call (206) 464-2121 or 1-800-542-0820, or go to http://seattletimes.com/subscribe
HOW TO ADVERTISE WITH THE SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY ONLINE For information on advertising in this
e-mail newsletter, or other online marketing platforms with The Seattle Times Company, call
(206) 464-3237 or e-mail websales@seattletimes.com
TO ADVERTISE IN THE SEATTLE TIMES PRINT EDITION Please go to
http://www.seattletimescompany.com/advertise
for information.
======================================================================
Copyright (c) 2009 The Seattle Times Company
www.seattletimes.com
NLRB-FOIA-U00005111
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Solomon, Lafe E.
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 8:16 PM
Even I underestimated
the vitriol that the complaint generated but hopefully your attys are able to withstand the
attacks to come. Hope the conference goes well. Lafe
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Exemption 6
Exemption 6
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014961873_boeing05.html
======================================================================
TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE SEATTLE TIMES PRINT EDITION
Call (206) 464-2121 or 1-800-542-0820, or go to http://seattletimes.com/subscribe
HOW TO ADVERTISE WITH THE SEATTLE TIMES COMPANY ONLINE For information on advertising in this
e-mail newsletter, or other online marketing platforms with The Seattle Times Company, call
(206) 464-3237 or e-mail websales@seattletimes.com
TO ADVERTISE IN THE SEATTLE TIMES PRINT EDITION Please go to
http://www.seattletimescompany.com/advertise
for information.
======================================================================
Copyright (c) 2009 The Seattle Times Company
www.seattletimes.com
1
NLRB-FOIA-U00005112
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Garza, Jose
Thursday, June 09, 2011 1:24 PM
Solomon, Lafe E.
Re: request re Boeing article
Lafe, I am meeting with Celeste, Jennifer, and Barry. Could you give us a call asap? We would to run a few proposals
past you.
Exemption 5
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Fyi, I know your both out of the office but any thoughts would be appreciated.
Nancy Cleeland
NLRB Director of Public Affairs
(202) 273-0222
nancy.cleeland@nlrb.gov
Nancy,
Im taking the somewhat unusual step of sharing an email I sent yesterday to Sen. DeMints
communications director. As youll see, it provides the comments of a former NLRB chairman (who you might
know, or know of) who disagrees with Lafe Solomons complaint against Boeing on the merits, but also strongly
criticizes Republican lawmakers for politicizing the NLRB process and interfering with an independent agency.
Could I please get a statement from you or (preferably) from Lafe on this? The article Im working on is a
fairly big enterprise setup for the ALJ hearing in Seattle on Tuesday; its intended to be a broad piece that will
pull things together and help the reader who hasnt been following all the ins and outs of this case the last
couple months. I know that Lafe put out a statement last month, but I would very much appreciate something
fresher and perhaps more focused to respond to Gould below. I.e., why LS believes that his complaint is
justified.
Im writing tomorrow morning. Appreciate your help.
NLRB-FOIA-U00005141
(And grateful if you dont share this email outside your office.)
Jim
Hey, W esley,
Im doing a pretty big article to set up next Tuesdays administrative law judge hearing in Seattle on the Boeing-
NLRB case. I did a long interview with W illiam Gould, who chaired the NLRB under Clinton and is now a Stanford law
professor.
Gould thinks Lafe Solomon is wrong on the merits of his complaint i.e., Gould doesnt think that Boeing violated
labor laws by opening the S.C. 787 plant. At the same time, Gould came down very hard on JDM he specifically cited
Sen. DeMints use of thuggery and accused him of politicizing the process to a dangerous extreme. He said the call by
JDM and others for Obama to intervene is unprecedented and would undermine the rule of law. He said Democratic and
Republican presidents for decades havent intervened in NLRB proceedings.
Anyway, could I please get a response from JDM to this claim that he is politicizing the work of an independent
executive agency and thereby undermining the rule of law that separates the United States from most countries?
I know this sounds loaded, but dont shoot the messenger :>) Im just forwarding what this fellow said.
(Please dont share this email or its contents outside your office.)
Thanks.
Jim
NLRB-FOIA-U00005142
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Advice Attorneys
From: To:
Advice Attorneys
Advice Attorneys
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/right-to-work-senate-nlrb_n_857021.html
NLRB-FOIA-U00005212
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Szapiro, Miriam
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 8:47 AM
Exemption 6 - Advice attorney W illen, Debra L
RE: more talk of "defunding"
From:
From: Exemption 6 - Advice attorney Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 6:06 PM
To: Subject: more talk of "defunding"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/03/right-to-work-senate-nlrb_n_857021.html
Exemption 6 - Advice attorneys
NLRB-FOIA-U00005213
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
W ednesday, May 04, 2011 9:55 AM
Advice Attorney Szapiro, Miriam;
RE: more talk of "defunding"
; Willen, Debra L
(hopefully)
Advice Attorneys
NLRB-FOIA-U00005216
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
W illen, Debra L
W ednesday, June 01, 2011 1:23 PM
Szapiro, Miriam
RE: Text of bill to block Boeing relocation
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
Non-Responsive
NLRB-FOIA-U00005268
sigh
FYI
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1976
To amend the National Labor Relations Act to clarify the applicability of such Act with respect to States that
have right to work laws in effect.
Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. GOWDY, Mr. DUNCAN of
South Carolina, and Mr. MULVANEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
Education and the Workforce
A BILL
To amend the National Labor Relations Act to clarify the applicability of such Act with respect to States that
have right to work laws in effect.
NLRB-FOIA-U00005269
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
(a) Unfair Labor Practices.Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3)) is
amended by inserting before the semicolon at the end the following: : Provided further, That an employers
expression of any views, argument, or opinion related to the costs associated with collective bargaining, work
stoppages, or strikes, or the dissemination of such views, arguments, or opinions, whether in written, printed,
graphic, digital, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of antiunion animus or unlawful motive, if
such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
(b) Prevention of Unfair Labor Practices.Section 10 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 160) is
amended
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting after the period at the end the following: : Provided further, That the
Board shall have no power to order any employer to relocate, shut down, or transfer any existing or planned
facility or work or employment opportunity, or prevent any employer from making such relocations,
transfers, or expansions to new or existing facilities in the future, or prevent any employer from closing a
facility, not developing a facility, or eliminating any employment opportunity unless and until the employer
has been adjudicated finally to have unlawfully undertaken such actions
(1) without advance notice to the labor organization, if any, representing the bargaining unit of the affected
employees, of the economic reason(s) for the relocation, shut down, or transfer of existing or future work; or
(2) as a primary and direct response to efforts by a labor organization to organize a previously
unrepresented workplace; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
(n) Nothing in this Act shall prevent an employer from choosing where to locate, develop, or expand its
business or facilities, or require any employer to move, transfer, or relocate any facility, production line, or
employment opportunity, or require that an employer cease or refrain from doing so, or prevent any employer
from closing a facility or eliminating any employment opportunity unless the employer has been adjudicated
finally to have unlawfully undertaken such actions
(1) without advance notice to the labor organization, if any, representing the bargaining unit of the affected
employees, of the economic reason(s) for the relocation, shut down, or transfer of existing or future work; or
(2) as a primary and direct response to efforts by a labor organization to organize a previously
unrepresented workplace..
Andrew Martin
Librarian (Law)
National Labor Relations Board
3
NLRB-FOIA-U00005270
NLRB-FOIA-U00005271
Microsoft Outlook
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Ahearn, Richard L.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010 4:51 PM
Todd, Dianne
Re: Memo to Lafe from Advice
D, Many thanks; btw...can you give me your schedule in the next few weeks...in case Boeing offers to present witnesses
and GC agrees?
Many thanks.
R
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
Rich,
We have an affidavit from employee Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D) who said that he read Boeings memo 787
Second Line
Questions and Answers for Managers 10/28/9 at the time it was released as did the other Exemption 6, 7(C), 7(D) employees in his unit.
Good luck!
Dianne
Dianne, Colleen,
Do we have a response to the question in fn. 24? Evidence?
Many thanks.
Rich
Richard L Ahearn
Regional Director, Region 19, Seattle
206 220 6310
NLRB-FOIA-U00005278