Advertisement

May 18, 2013

Boeing and the Union Reach a Tentative Agreement to End Contentious Battle Over Cross-Country Relocation

The controversial battle between Boeing and the machinists union that has grabbed national attention appears to be coming to an end. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers announced that the parties have agreed to a contract extension (subject to ratification) which would resolve the pending NLRB suit. The tentative deal will extend the collective bargaining agreement by four years which will ensure that Boeing's operations remain in Washington state.  

This battle began in 2009 when Boeing made the decision to relocate its production of the 787 Dreamliner plane from Washington to South Carolina. In April 2011, the NLRB filed an unfair labor practice suit against Boeing alleging that Boeing chose South Carolina based upon its right-to-work law in retaliation for various strikes by the unionized workers in Washington plants which delayed production of the 787 Dreamliner. The NLRB's attempt to block Boeing's business decision has grabbed national headlines and sparked interest from Congress and Presidential candidates.

The tentative agreement, if ratified, will run through September 2016.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Associate

Adam Bartrom of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law Department collaborates with businesses to handle disputes and to create preventive strategies of all sizes. Adam dedicates his practice to representing management interests on the employment and traditional labor fronts.

On the employment side, Adam routinely represents employers in state and federal courts and administrative agencies, such as the DOL, EEOC and other federal, state, and local administrative agencies. Adam has also effectively represented employers against claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair...

260-425-4629

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.