Skip to content

Judicial Watch • NLRB Response 8112011

NLRB Response 8112011

NLRB Response 8112011

Page 1: NLRB Response 8112011

Category:General

Number of Pages:3

Date Created:August 15, 2011

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 20, 2014

Tags:8112011, nlrb, response


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 JNFORMA TION 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. Althen: 
This response your telefax, dated and received this Office July 14, 2011, which you request, pursuant the Freedom Information Act (FOIA), the following documents: 
"1) Records communications between officials, officers, 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 Company's 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 file 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-CIO, 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 Counsel-side the National Labor Relations Board. have been advised the Board-side that, after conducting thorough search the Board-side offices, 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's Office the General Counsel, the Division OperationsManagement, 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 policymaking 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 reflect 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 U.S. 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 attorney's mental impressions and legal theories and that were prepared attorney, nonattorney 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 workproduct material not subject defeat even requester could show substantial need for the information and undue hardship obtaining from another source. See FTC Grolier, Inc., 462 U.S. 19, (1983). Further, the protection against disclosure workproduct 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 S's attorney work-product privilege. 
Moreover, because the underlying case still open, the requested documents are privileged from disclosure under Exemption ?(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's enforcement responsibility. See, Wellman Industries, Inc. 
N.L.R.B., 490 F.2d 427 (4th 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's 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 Supervisor, (202) 273-3851. 

MW/kmb LR-2011-0727-mw2.doc