Over the past few weeks I have been in a vigorous e-mail and phone debate with a fellow management lawyer concerning the meaning and effect of the issuance of a complaint in the Boeing case. Previous posts here. Contrary to many gloomy management predictions, I think Boeing is a fairly garden variety application of long established labor law. My friend believes it is a fundamental assault on employer free speech and employer right to determine facility location.
Now we have General Electric announcing the opening a non-union locomotive factory in Texas. At the same time it is bargaining with union workers at at its existing locomotive factory in Pennsylvania. Assuming GE executives do not articulate an anti-union motivation for their actions, as is alleged that the Boeing executives did, this sets up an ideal scenario for testing the limits of the NLRB's interpretation of a Boeing style violation. Can the announcement of the location of a new facility in a right to work state during contract negotiations ever be viewed as an unfair labor practice? The correct conclusion is obvious, it cannot, without more, be a violation. Management has the right to determine where it locates facilities, as long as the decision is not tainted with anti-union motivation. The difference in Boeing is the NLRB believes the company's actions and statements establish an anti-union motivation for its decision and issued a complaint so that the issue will be tried before an administrative law judge. Boeing may still prevail, but it will have to show the relocation to South Carolina was motivated by lawful factors.
