WASHINGTON — What began as an administrative complaint over the opening of a factory in South Carolina has grown into an all-out political brawl over union bosses and the future of U.S. capitalism.
When an administrative law judge takes up the National Labor Relations Board's case against Boeing in Seattle on Tuesday, he will incite Republicans who accuse President Obama of thwarting job growth to appease union cronies and advance his big-government policies.
"All eyes will be on Seattle next Tuesday, when one of our nation's greatest assets and contributors to our economic future will be put on trial for investing, creating and innovating at a time when we are in the middle of an economic recession," Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said on the Senate floor last week.
At issue is whether Boeing engaged in union-busting with its 2009 decision to open a plant in North Charleston, S.C., to make its 787 jets for airlines around the world that have already ordered more than 800 of the aerospace giant's cutting-edge Dreamliners.
The NLRB's top lawyer says Boeing built the factory in South Carolina, a right-to-work state with few labor disputes, to retaliate against its unionized employees for past strikes at the Fortune 500 firm's hub in Everett, Wash.
Lafe Solomon, the NLRB acting general counsel, downplayed the dispute in saying "a thorough investigation" led him to file the April 20 complaint that will get is first formal airing in the Seattle courtroom.
"During this hearing, all parties will have a chance to present their arguments and evidence," Solomon said in an interview. "It will be up to the judge to weigh that evidence and issue a decision."
Boeing, the world's largest aerospace company, appears determined to defy the NLRB proceeding.
The firm held a ribbon-cutting ceremony Friday outside the plant next to Charleston International Airport, even though it won't open until next month and won't produce any Dreamliners until the fall.
Boeing officials said the ceremony's timing days before the Seattle hearing was coincidental and denied that it was staged as an in-your-face gesture at Washington.
"We at the Boeing Company are celebrating an important day in American manufacturing," said Sean McCormack, communications head of the firm's government operations. "We are confident that w e will prevail against the National Labor Relations Board complaint, but today for us is not about that dispute."
Republican leaders were less measured in framing the symbolic factory opening as a political shot across the bow aimed at Obama and unions that have made millions of dollars in campaign contributions to him and other Democratic candidates.
"Full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes!" said Sen. Lindsey Graham. "South Carolina earned the right to build airplanes for Boeing in our state, and no one is going to take that away from us."
Graham, a military lawyer who was in private practice before joining Congress in 1995, derided the NLRB case as a "frivolous" act of "political theater."
Virtually every major business group, from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the National Association of Manufacturers, is backing Boeing in the dispute.
Those Republican-leaning groups, along with their hundreds of member companies, have provided their own millions to GOP political candidates.
Obama aides repeatedly have refused to comment on the case, saying the NLRB is an independent agency that must operative free of White House influence.
Leading labor law experts, including some who have served on the NLRB, disagree over whether the federal agency is overreaching — and whether its case against Boeing is routine or unusual.
Stanford University law professor William Gould, who chaired the NLRB in the 1990s under Democratic President Bill Clinton, said Solomon's case is weak.
While the National Labor Relations Act created the NLRB in 1935 and charged it with protecting workers' collective-bargaining rights, Gould said, the law allows firms to consider past strikes and production disruptions in deciding where to locate their plants.
"I don't find merit in the general counsel's position (on Boeing)," Gould said in an interview. "It's perfectly appropriate under our federal labor law for an employer to make managerial decisions based upon its ability to meet production deadlines. And part of that consideration is going to be related to strikes."
Catherine Fisk, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, said the Boeing case is similar to a string of NLRB actions going back decades in which the labor agency charged companies with shifting jobs from union to non-organized workers.
"The heart of the NLRB case (against Boeing) is that opening the South Carolina plant was done for purposes of intimidating the Washington employees from striking again or from being unduly aggressive in their wage demands," Fisk said.