Boeing, Machinists in dispute over sensitive corporate information

Published 12:01 am Saturday, August 6, 2011

SEATTLE — The Boeing Co. and the Machinists union couldn’t agree on how to protect the company’s documents in a labor dispute Friday, so they … created more documents.

The documents, including more from the National Labor Relations Board, were submitted Friday to Clifford Anderson, an administrative law judge presiding over the case between the labor board and Boeing.

The board accuses the company of punishing the union for labor strikes in the Puget Sound area by putting a second 787 assembly line in South Carolina, a right-to-work state. The first production line is in Everett.

The case began in June and the parties have been trying to decide how to deal with documents with sensitive corporate information that could either divulge trade secrets to competitors or could provide the union with information it could use in labor negotiations.

“They did not come up with an agreement,” said Nancy Cleeland of the labor board. “They’ve all turned in motions describing what they think would be the best protective order.”

Anderson will review the recommended orders and make his decision later.

The fight is over documents the federal agency has ordered Boeing to produce in the case.

In their motion, the board’s lawyers say the Boeing should be allowed to identify some documents as confidential but must provide clear reasons. The union or the agency would be able to challenge Boeing’s claims and the documents would be “provisionally sealed” until the judge makes a decision.

“Respondent must be required to submit to the administrative law judge a specific factual showing sufficient to establish good cause for subjecting subpoenaed documents to a protective order,” the agency contended.

Boeing lawyers said they thought they had an agreement late Thursday, but that they were told they may not have one “less than two hours before today’s filing deadline.”

The company repeated that it believes it should be allowed to withhold information that would “provide the union with an unfair advantage in collective bargaining.”

In its motion, the union repeated that the judge should produce an order that allows him “to decide evidentiary matters, to conduct the hearing in public and to maintain the integrity of the proceedings.”