Skip to content

Judicial Watch • 2011 nlrb-response-08112011

2011 nlrb-response-08112011

2011 nlrb-response-08112011

Page 1: 2011 nlrb-response-08112011

Category:FOIA Response

Number of Pages:3

Date Created:August 15, 2011

Date Uploaded to the Library:July 30, 2013

Tags:nlrb


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
OFFICE THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 
FREEDOM INFORMATION OFFICE
 Washington, D.C. 20570
Date: August 11, 2011
John Althen
Judicial Watch
425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800
Washington, 20024
Re: FOIA ID/LR-2011-0727
Dear Mr. Allhen
This response your telefax, dated and received this Office July 14,
2011, which you request, pursuant the Freedom Information Act (FOIA), the
following documents: Records communications between officials, cers, employees
the NLRB concerning, regarding, relating the Boeing Company. Records communications between the NLRB and the following entities
concerning, regarding, relating the Boeing Company:
The White House;
The Executive Office the President;
The State Washington;
The State Oregon;
The Boeing Company;
The International Association Machinists and Aerospace Workers;
The AFL-CIO, the SEIU, and/or any additional third party trade union; Any additional non-governmental entities. Records concerning, regarding, relating the impact the Boeing
Companys new assembly plant North Charleston, South Carolina
employment South Carolina. Records concerning, regarding, relating the decision file
complaint against the Boeing Company Case 19-CA 32431. Records communication between officials, officers, employees the
NLRB concerning, regarding, relating the decision complaint
against the Boeing Company Case 19-CA-32431. Records communications between the NLRB and the following entities
concerning, regarding, relating the decision file complaint
against the Boeing Company Case 19-CA-3241:
The White House;
The Executive Office the President;
The State Washington;
The State Oregon;
The Boeing Company;
The International Association Machinists and Aerospace Workers; The AFL CO, the SEIU, and/or any additional third party trade union; Any additional non-governmental entities.
The timeframe for this request January 20, 2009 July 14, 2011. interim reply was sent you July 28, 2011. interpreting your request apply both the Board-side and the General
CounseI side the National Labor Relations Board. have been advised the Board side
that, after conducting thorough search the Board-side ces, there are responsive
documents your request emanating from the Board side.
Regarding documents emanating from the General Counsel-side, after conducting
thorough search our Agency Office the General Counsel, the Division Operations-
Management, the Division Advice, and Region 19, your request denied. the extent
that any documents responsive your request may exist, they are privileged from
disclosure pursuant FOIA Exemptions and 7(A), explained below.
The requested documents are privileged from disclosure under Exemption the
Freedom Information Act, U.S.C. 552(b)(5), since they are intra-agency memoranda documents which would not available law party other than agency
litigation with this Agency. The legislative history Exemption makes clear that this
subsection the Freedom Information Act was designed protect and promote the
objectives fostering frank deliberation and consultation within the Agency the policy-
making stage, and prevent premature disclosure policy which could disrupt agency
procedure. Thus, Exemption based upon and preserves the privilege against
disclosure intra-agency and inter-agency memoranda and documents reflecting the
deliberative and consultative process that communications between those involved the
process might uninhibited. These documents ect the views the General Counsel
and his staff concerning prosecutorial policies the processing unfair labor practice
cases. Since they discuss strengths and weaknesses the evidence, analyze various
legal theories, and suggest litigation strategies and settlement possibilities, such documents
clearly reflect the deliberative and consultative process the Agency which Exemption
protects from forced disclosure. N.L.R.B. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975).
This exemption was intended encompass all documents normally privileged
the civil discovery process, Sears, 421 U.S. 148-149 (1975); FTC Grolier, 462 US.
19, 20, (1983); United States Weber Aircraft Corp., 465 U.S. 792, 799 (1984); and
incorporates the attorney work product privilege. Sears, 421 U.S. 154. The attorney
work product privilege protects documents and other memoranda that reveal attorneys
mental impressions and legal theories and that were prepared attorney, non-
attorney supervised attorney, contemplation litigation. See United States
Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 (1975); Hickman Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 509-510
(1047). Additionally, the protection provided Exemption the FOIA for attorney work-
product material not subject defeat even requester could show substantial need
forthe information and undue hardship obtaining from another source. See FTC
Grolier, Inc., 462 U.S. 19, (1983). Further, the protection against disclosure work-
product documents extends even after litigation terminated and the case for which they
were created closed. Id. The information you seek here contains evaluation and
analysis the critical facts and legal theories governing the case and other similar matters,
thereby falling squarely within the protection Exemption attorney work-product
privilege,
Moreover. because the underlying case still open, the requested documents are
privileged from disclosure under Exemption 7(A) the Freedom Information Act,
U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(A), since they are part the investigatory record compiled for law
enforcement purposes, the disclosure which could reasonably expected interfere
with enforcement proceedings. Making such documents available upon request would have
the effect restricting communication within the Agency, and prematurely disclosing
attorney work product and analysis. Since proper enforcement the labor laws
administered this Agency depends great extent upon free and frank communication
within the Agency, preserving the integrity this intra agency communication
necessary aspect the Board enforcement responsibility. See, Wellman Industries, Inc. N.L.R.B., 490 F.2d 427 Cir. 1974), cert. denied 419 U.S. 834 (1974).
Because have already conducted search and review possible responsive
documents the course preparing our response other similar FOIA requests, are
not charging you for processing this request. doing, however, are not addressing
your request for fee waiver, nor are making determination the appropriate fee
category which you would placed for the purposes this request.
The undersigned responsible for the above determination. You may obtain
review thereof under the provisions the NLRB Rules and Regulations, Section
102.117(c)(2)(v), filing appeal with the General Counsel, Office Appeals, National
Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C., 20570, within calendar days the date this
letter, such period beginning run the calendar day after the date this letter. Thus,
the appeal must received the close business 5:00 p.m. (ET) September
2011. Any appeal should contain complete statement the reasons upon which
based. Questions concerning appeal this determination should directed the
Office Appeals. For questions concerning this letter, please call Diane Bridge, FOIA
Supenlisor, (202) 273-3851.
rlincerely,
Jucqtltiiize Young
NLRB: moriom lnformizlian Iiimir
MW/kmb
LR-2011-0727-mw2.doc