Trump’s Next Victim: Pollsters
There’s a market for bad polls showing Trump competitive with Hillary Clinton. Guess who is jumping in?Read More »
Last week, three Boeing employees, whose jobs are at stake due to the National Labor Relations Board’s prosecution of their employer, filed to intervene in the case.
Now, just a few days later, Lafe Solomon has declared that he is opposed to their intervention in the case–even though they stand a good chance of losing their jobs due to the union and the NLRB’s actions.
In a 17-page legal response obtained on Tuesday, attorneys writing as “counsel” for the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel stated:
Counsel for the Acting General Counsel opposes the Motion to Intervene (“Motion”) filed by Dennis Murray, Cynthia Ramaker, and Meredith Going, Sr. (“Movants”) on June 1, 2011. Movants are employed by Respondent The Boeing Company (“Respondent”) in North Charleston, South Carolina, and essentially argue that, as such, they are entitled to status as intervenors or, in the alternative, amici curiae, in this proceeding. More specifically, Movants argue that they should be allowed to intervene because of the possibility that they will be adversely affected by the outcome of the proceeding.
As set forth below, Movants’ interests are already adequately represented by the parties and they, in fact, have no cognizable interest in participating in this proceeding sufficient to justify their intervention. Thus, their unnecessary participation as three additional parties would merely delay and complicate these already complex proceedings. In the interest of a just and speedy resolution of this dispute, intervention should be denied. The Acting General Counsel believes that, just as Movants do not have an interest that warrants intervention, they also lack a sufficient interest to be accorded amicus status. Nevertheless, the Acting General Counsel does not object to their amicus status for the sole purpose of filing post-hearing briefs on their own behalf.
The problem, of course, is that, while the NLRB argues that the employees’ are adequately served by Boeing (the “respondent”), it is possible that Boeing may choose to settle the charges. If there is a settlement that has an adverse impact on the employees in South Carolina, then the NLRB will have shut down their ability to be party to the case.
Here is the full response:
While the door is not closed entirely to the South Carolina employees, the NLRB’s actions are telling.
Boeing’s union in Puget Sound has not been adversely affected by the opening of the Charleston plant (Boeing has actually added employees in Puget Sound) and, while Boeing may be out its money if the NLRB (and the Courts) rule against the Company, it is the Charleston employees who will suffer the most by losing their jobs.
Boeing’s Charleston employees should at least be given the ability to legally fight for their jobs and the NLRB is wrong in denying them the opportunity to do so.
“I bring reason to your ears, and, in language as plain as ABC, hold up truth to your eyes.” Thomas Paine, December 23, 1776