I'm back. This seems to be my time for family matters that require me to be away from home. I have not given up. I have heard some more interesting things while away. There seems to be an increasing amount of corruption coming into the light. Some of it is in the news media. Some of it is not yet.
If any of you have something to report or bring public attention to, please let me know. I believe not "going quietly into the good night" is a key to prevailing.
GFS
Posted at 08:45 PM in Boeing Whistleblower, Conflict of Interest, Contracting Reform, Corruption in Gov. and/or Industry, Fed Gov Workers and Jobs, Fed. Contract Abuse and WBR Protection, Federal Contracting Reform , Federal Oversight Failures, Fraud and Contracting , Fraud and Corruption, Government and Whistleblowers, Government Incompentence and Corruption | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
This from Rob Petersen, who is still trying to get justice, concerning his unlawful treatment by BISS, (a wholly owned subsidiary of Boeing), and the Saudi Arabian government.
Read and be advised what kinds of things happen to Americans and what little support they have from our government, if they decide to work overseas for a company doing work outside of the U.S. even if the company is American or is a wholly owned subsidiary of an American company. Or does Boeing now consider itself to no longer be an American corporation? If that is the case, a whole lot of things need to be reinvestigated and redetermined regarding defense contracts and other contracts, which have to do with U.S. national security.
KB Richter has not answered Mr. Petersen’s question. Her/his answer is no answer. If a person accepted work with a Saudi company, and it was not represented as an American corporation, or a division of a well-known American corporation, that is one thing. But if an American corporation like Boeing, and/or its wholly owned subsidiary represents itself as doing business in both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, that is another thing altogether. It sounds like Mr. Peterson and others have a valid false claims complaint.
From what I understand of Mr. Petersen’s unfortunate experience, he was injured and needed medical care in the U.S. and was not allowed access to his passport to return to the U.S. for that necessary medical care. That ventures into the human rights arena in my mind. This is not merely a “labor dispute" over some small matter. This was a matter of life and health.
It would appear people should be very careful about accepting employment with any American company that does business overseas, either the parent company, or any subsidiaries, wholly owned or not. If our government cannot and will not protect it’s citizens in these situations, and that country, Saudi Arabia, is such a violator of human rights, I again ask, why Saudi Arabia holds such a high degree of trust with regard to trade and arms sales? Why are we selling them weapons, planes with secret technology, and so on?
I ask this to push the issue. I am aware of previous personal relationships between our heads of state and Saudi royal family. I am aware of manipulation of trade agreements to accomplish sale of certain airplanes produced by Boeing. I am aware of other business and banking relationships between certain entities here and Saudi entities. None of this should make it acceptable to hold an American hostage like Robin Petersen was when injured and needing medical treatment back home in the U.S. Outrageous. Particularly the Boeing Company’s efforts to now distance themselves from their wholly owned subsidiary, now that they’ve been caught with their hands in this matter.
If any of you can add your voice to the call for justice, regarding all of this, please do!
GFS
Rob says:
To all;
After over eight months I finally received an email from the U.S. State Department stating they are unable to help Americans in the country of Saudi Arabia.
If you should care about America and our rights, as I do, please send a letter to your Senators or House Representatives asking just two questions: (Consider enclosing the email found below with your letters)
1. How is possible that our young men and women can be fighting for "Freedom" in Afghanistan or Iraq, but that our own U.S. Consulate in Saudi Arabia will throw an injured American Veteran out on the street when he asks for help to have his illegally confiscated U.S. Passport returned?
2. Ask how is it that no action will be taken against American Companies that participate, support and condone the illegal activity of passport confiscation?
Thank you for your help.
My Best,
Rob
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: OIG complaint regarding your experience in Saudi Arabia
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 15:47:08 +0000
Dear Ms. Richter;
Would you please identify your position; which office within the U.S. Department of State you work; your supervisors position; and the date of the letter (my letter) of which you are now responding.
For your information, I was told that my complaint had been sent to the Bureau of Consulate Affairs, Washington DC for action over eight (8) months ago. I am still waiting for a response from that office.
Thank for providing the information concerning Saudi Arabia. My complaint however, concerns the fraud that was perpetrated upon me by "The Boeing Company" and its "American Run" and wholly own subsidiary Boeing International Support Systems (first) here in the United States and then again in Saudi Arabia. Boeing International Support Systems operates from Oklahoma City and St. Louis Missouri. The evidence package I provided the DOJ and Bureau of Consulate Affairs supports this claim. My U.S. passport was taken from me by an American Citizen working for Boeing/BISS and was not returned upon my reasonable (written) request.
As your information (found below) confirms the fact that it is illegal to confiscate passports in the country of Saudi Arabia. Any American business that engages or condones the confiscation of U.S. passports and who supports human trafficking in any way has violated U.S. law. The Presidential Interagency Task Force created in February 3, 2010 pledges; "To uphold a system that provides for all victims, whether they lost their freedom through sex trafficking or labor trafficking and regardless of age, gender or immigration status." I believe the U.S. State Department is part of this "Interagency Task Force" and has a duty to protect my rights as an American Citizen.
As such, I am again stating for the record, that my country follow the law, utilize the "Presidential Interagency Task Force" and bring those to justice who bring disgrace and discredit upon our Nation's Constitution and the Laws of this Country. Thank you for your email and I look forward to hearing that this matter will be thoroughly investigated.
Sincerely,
//Signed//
Robin P. Petersen
(480) 993-5344
Subject: OIG complaint regarding your experience in Saudi Arabia
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 09:47:52 -0400
From: [email protected]
Mr. Petersen,
I just received your OIG complaint regarding your experience with Boeing in Saudi Arabia. I understand you have concerns regarding your time in Saudi and how you feel you were held against your will and your passport was confiscated and the Consulate in Jeddah did nothing to assist you. Working in Saudi Arabia is completely different than working in the U.S. Your sponsor – the company that hired you – has control over you while in Saudi and can stop you from departing if there are contractual or other disputes. The U.S. Embassy/Consulate is unable to assist you those situations.
In our Consular Information Products which are available at http://travel.state.gov we try to give you as much information as we can regarding travel and work in Saudi Arabia.
http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1012.html#special_circumstance
Business Contracts: The written Arabic text of a contract governs employment and business arrangements under Saudi law. Before signing a contract, U.S. companies should obtain an independent translation to ensure a full understanding of the contract's terms, limits, and agreements. No U.S. citizen should come to work in Saudi Arabia or make a business arrangement without having read and understood the full written contract. Verbal assurances or side letters are not binding under Saudi law. In the event of any contract dispute, the Saudi authorities refer to the contract. Since the Saudi sponsor holds the employee's passport and controls the issuance of exit permits, U.S. citizens cannot simply leave Saudi Arabia in the event of a labor or business dispute. A U.S. citizen who breaks an employment or business contract may have to pay substantial penalties before being allowed to leave Saudi Arabia. To change employers in Saudi Arabia requires the written permission of the original sponsoring employer, which is discretionary. Saudi courts take seriously their responsibility to adjudicate disputes. This process, which is performed in accordance with Saudi law and customs, may require hiring legal counsel, should not be entered into without an Arabic translator, and generally takes several months. Persons involved in legal cases are not permitted to leave the Kingdom until the case has been resolved or abandoned. The U.S. Embassy and U.S. Consulates General cannot adjudicate labor or business disputes or provide translation services. U.S. consular officers can provide lists of local attorneys to help U.S. citizens settle business disputes, but ultimate responsibility for the resolution of disputes through the Saudi legal system lies with the parties involved. For additional information on Saudi labor law, please refer to the Ministry of Labor’s information on related regulations.
The Human Rights Report from 2010 discusses the lack of workers’ rights in Saudi Arabia.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/nea/154472.htm - The lack of workers' rights, including the employment sponsorship system, remained a severe problem.
Noncitizens may reside or work in the country only under the sponsorship of a citizen or business. The law does not permit noncitizens to change their workplace without their sponsor's permission, thus forcing the worker to remain with the sponsor until the satisfaction of the contractual terms or to seek the assistance of the embassy to return home. Foreign workers were under the complete control of their sponsoring employers, who held their passports and were responsible for processing residence permits on their behalf, although the country has a law prohibiting the withholding of passports. Sponsors involved in a commercial or labor dispute with foreign employees could ask authorities to prohibit the employees from departing the country until the dispute is resolved. Workers can hire a lawyer or represent themselves in the arbitration or court proceedings to settle the contractual dispute.
This email is UNCLASSIFIED.
Posted at 09:23 PM in Boeing Corruption and Fraud, Boeing Whistleblower, Government and Laws, Government and Whistleblowers, Whistleblower Protection, Whistleblower Rights , Whistleblowers | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: BISS, Boeing, Robin Petersen, Saudi Arabia's Human Rights Violations
With Mr. Petersen's permission, I have posted the letter below that he wrote asking help from Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, while he experienced unlawful detainment by BIS/Boeing in Saudi Arabia and was not allowed to leave to seek medical treatment in the United States. Apparently there are a number of people, both U.S citizens and citizens of other nations, who have been experiencing such treatment. This is an outrage. Defininitive action must be taken by the U.S. government, concerning this unlawful behavior by Boeing/BISS and what appears to be an involved Saudi government. Accepting employment with Boeing/BISS and working in the Middle East should not be tantamount to signing away one's rights and becoming a slave or political prisoner. GFS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To all;
I have sent the following email to the U.S. State Department as they allow only seven days in which to respond to their email.
Rob
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Boeing Company Violating Human Rights [Incident: 100604-000108]
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:04:54 +0000
Dear Sir/Madam;
Thank you for your email. I am responding because you stated that I have seven (7) days to reopen this matter should I not feel it has been resolved. I do not feel it has been properly resolved. My point in this matter is that the Boeing Company and its wholly owned subsidiary Boeing International Support Systems have engaged in U.S. Passport confiscation, false imprisonment, failure to provide for the safety and wellbeing of its employees and other fraudulent activities. They have defrauded the Saudi Government through over billing (claiming to have more employees working for them than actual) and in providing substandard flight training and unsafe aircraft maintenance. They are a U.S. Contactor and as such are required to meet certain ethical, professional and legal standards in accordance with the Technical Assistance Agreements established through our U.S. State Department. They have not met those standards and should be held accountable for violating such agreements.
I and others, including people from other nations were held against our will and were not allowed to return to our countries of origin when requests were made in writing to Boeing managers. Many were forced to sign liability releases before being paid, having their passports returned, and being provided with an "Exit Visa" in which to leave the country of Saudi Arabia. Although, this information was reported first to the U.S. State Department in June of 2009, via the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (please find attached letter dated June 3, 2009) and then to the FBI in December of 2009 to my knowledge, no investigation has ever been initiated by either agency.
You should know that I recently sent a letter to President Obama dated June 16, 2010 asking that he please have someone contact the Phoenix, FBI on my behalf to inquire as to why they did not initiate an investigation of some sort for what I believe are criminal violations of U.S. Law.
Thank you for taking the time to review this information and please reopen this investigation [Incident: 100604-000108].
Sincerely,
s/ Robin Petersen
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:40:20 -0400
> Subject: Boeing Company Violating Human Rights [Incident: 100604-000108]
>
>
> Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support
> center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.
>
> If this issue is not resolved to your satisfaction, you may reopen it
> within the next 7 days.
>
> Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.
>
> Subject
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Boeing Company Violating Human Rights
>
>
> Discussion Thread
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Response (Support Agent) - 06/18/2010 10:40 AM
> Thank you for your message to Secretary Clinton sharing your thoughts and concerns. We value your opinion and will take it -- and the views of all Americans -- into consideration.
>
> Secretary Clinton is committed to strengthening America’s national security, advancing the interest of the United States, and restoring America’s leadership position in the world.
>
> Thank you for contacting the U.S. Department of State.
>
>
> Question Reference #100604-000108
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Category Level 1: Ask the State Department
> Date Created: 06/04/2010 12:06 PM
> Last Updated: 06/18/2010 10:40 AM
> Status: Solved
> [---001:001003:23410---]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin P. Petersen
Apartment NC8-10D
Saudi City, Jeddah
Saudi Arabia
Email [email protected] Phone # 966 (0) 56 650-7815
June 3, 2009
US State Department
The Honorable Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State
Washington DC
USA
Subj: Withholding of US Passports
Dear Mrs. Clinton;
I am writing you this letter to request your assistance. I am a US Citizen / Retired Veteran and have been injured in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. I need to return to the United States for medical care.
Although I have requested the return of my US Passport, the managers of the Boeing International Support Systems / Alsalam Aircraft Company will not return the passport to me nor will they provide me with an exit visa to leave this country.
I have enclosed a copy of a letter that was written to the Boeing C.E.O. dated June 2, 2009 for your review. Please help me.
Thank you,
Robin P. Petersen
Encl: letter dated June 2, 2009 to the Boeing Company CEO
Posted at 02:06 PM in Boeing, Boeing Corruption and Fraud, Boeing Fraud, Boeing Specific Whistleblowers, faulty parts complaints etc._, Boeing Whistleblower, Contractor Lack of Security, Corporate and Government Corruption, Corruption in Gov. and/or Industry, Defense Contracting-Boeing, Lockheed, Fed. Contract Abuse and WBR Protection, Federal Contracting Reform , Federal Oversight Failures, Fraud and Contracting , Fraud and Corruption, Government and Industry Corruption, Government and Laws, Government and Whistleblowers, Government Corruption, Government Incompentence and Corruption, Industry and Government Corruption, Labor Law Failures , Waste, Fraud and Abuse | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: Boeing/BISS Whistleblower, Civil Rights Violations by Boeing/BISS, Held Prisoner by BISS, Robin Petersen
This story was sent to me as a comment related to the McNerney stories about Jim McNerney being placed in charge of Obama’s Export Council. It was sent to me by the plaintiff, Robin Petersen, who has filed suit against Boeing. I find this very disturbing that what Mr. Peterson was subjected to could even conceivably happen. I wish Mr. Petersen well and good luck with his legal proceedings. GFS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7:10 p.m. June 2: This is real. I found the court filing here: http://dockets.justia.com/search?q=Boeing+International+Support+Systems+Company%2C+Saudi+Arabia%2C+Limited
And Mr. Petersen’s attorney’s website here: Kissandra Tysman
http://tysmanlawfirm.com/attorneys.htm
THE BOEING COMPANY AIDING AND ABETTING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN SAUDI ARABIA
The Boeing Company, a U.S. company incorporated in the State of Delaware and with corporate offices in Chicago, Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri and its wholly owned subsidiary Boeing International Support Systems, Saudi Arabia (BISS) are reportedly engaged in the practice of passport confiscation, involuntary servitude, debt bondage, and fraudulent recruitment practices upon U.S. Citizens and Third Country National (TCN) workers. The Boeing Company may be held responsible for violations of U.S. Law and international law for "Aiding and Abetting" their subsidiary company, BISS which recruits employees out of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and is alleged to have confiscated passports from US Citizens and Third Country National workers in Saudi Arabia.
As reference, the U.S. State Department's 2009 report on "Human Trafficking" details the unconscionable and disturbing ongoing human rights violations that are presently taking place in the country of Saudi Arabia. A report authored by former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, (2006) identifies Saudi Arabia as a "Tier 3" country whose government does not fully comply with the minimum standards and is not making significant efforts to eliminate human rights violations in their country. The report further states that the United States employs a "zero tolerance" policy against human trafficking both domestically and abroad. A third report by the Department of Defense, OIG dated January 15, 2010, provides information relating to "Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act," January 10, 2006 that gives the United States Government authorization to terminate grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements for "Trafficking in Persons" (TIP) related violations.
A lawsuit brought by Attorney Kissandra L. Tysman of the Tysman Law Firm, located in Mesa, Arizona was filed on May 7, 2010 in U.S. District Court, Phoenix, Arizona against "The Boeing Company" and it wholly owned subsidiary BISS. The lawsuit alleges that her client Mr. Robin Petersen, a pilot and former U.S. Navy Commander who became injured overseas while employed by Boeing/BISS was not allowed to return to the United States for medical treatment in that he had his U.S. passport confiscated; was held against his will; and was not provided with an "Exit Visa" in which to leave the country of Saudi Arabia. Mr. Petersen had made several written requests for the return of his passport to "The Boeing Company" Operations Manager, in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Shaun A. Ford, and also contacted Mr. W. James McNerney, Jr., "The Boeing Company" CEO by Federal Express letter, detailing the fraudulent activity, unethical business practices, and violations of human rights that he had observed and experienced while employed by Boeing/BISS. Mr. McNerney never responded to Mr. Petersen's concerns and request for help. The lawsuit also alleges that a number of other U.S. Veterans and Third Country National workers who were employed by Boeing/BISS in Saudi Arabia had their passports confiscated and were subject to inhumane treatment.
Mr. Petersen made several attempts to get help from the U.S. Consulate located in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He was finally helped by a consulate security official in June 2009, who then ordered Boeing/BISS company officials to return Mr. Petersen's U.S. passport and provide him with the required "Exit Visa" in which to depart the country of Saudi Arabia. On June 8, 2009, and after six months without having the freedom to travel, Mr. Petersen was able to return to the United States to get the proper treatment he needed for his injury. The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Arizona, May 7, 2010 (case # 2:2010CV00999 Petersen v Boeing) and lists the following causes of action:
Count 1, Confiscation of U.S. Passports
Count 2, Violations of RICO statutes
Count 3, False imprisonment
Count 4, Breach of Contract
Count 5, Fraud
Count 6, Intentional Inflection of emotional distress
Count 7, Failure to pay wages
Although this lawsuit has been filed in the United States, it is important to know that there is an effort on the part of several worldwide organizations to hold executives of companies such as Mr. McNerney, CEO of "The Boeing Company" criminally responsible for willfully aiding and abetting their business partners who engage in human rights violations.
Posted at 09:43 PM in Boeing, Boeing Corruption and Fraud, Boeing Fraud, Boeing Specific Whistleblowers, faulty parts complaints etc._, Boeing Whistleblower, Corporate and Government Corruption, Fed. Contract Abuse and WBR Protection, Fraud and Contracting , Fraud and Corruption, Government and Whistleblowers, Whistleblower Protection | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: BISS. Boeing/BISS Takes Away Employee Rights, Boeing International Support Systems Company, Boeing's McNerney, Robin P. Petersen
Link to Original: http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1024
ST. LOUIS, Jan. 7, 2010 -- The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] today announced organization and leadership changes within its Integrated Defense Systems unit that continue to reposition the company for growth in the current business environment. The realignment is effective immediately, and the unit will begin operating under a new name: Boeing Defense, Space & Security.
In announcing the changes, Boeing Defense, Space & Security President and CEO Dennis Muilenburg said the realignment is part of a continuing effort to successfully compete in a rapidly evolving global defense and security marketplace. Muilenburg said that reshaping the unit positions Boeing for further growth in new and adjacent markets while continuing to serve existing defense and space customers.
"Boeing anticipated flattening defense budgets and shifting customer priorities for the past few years and has been taking aggressive steps to position the company for profitable growth in a challenging economy," Muilenburg said. "In the past 18 months alone, we have acquired seven companies to enhance existing capabilities, expanded Boeing's services business, and created new divisions -- like Unmanned Airborne Systems -- to directly and rapidly respond to our customers' emerging priorities.
"With these latest strategic moves, we can extend our core programs even as we enhance Boeing-wide capabilities designed to capture business in promising markets in the United States and around the world, including cyber-security, energy, intelligence, C4ISR and logistics," Muilenburg said.
The scope of change in Boeing's business environment is further reflected in the decision to rename Integrated Defense Systems, a name the unit has carried since 2002, when the company consolidated its military aircraft and space businesses. Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a recognition that success in a highly competitive global arena will be determined by a company's ability to offer and deliver new capabilities, products and services to meet complex customer demands.
"As Boeing sustains and grows its core global defense business through solid execution, we are also playing a broader role in markets that go beyond Boeing's traditional strengths," Muilenburg said. "As we grow in these areas, it is important for us to send strong signals to our global customers that we are prepared to offer high-value Boeing solutions for all of their needs across defense, space and security domains."
While Boeing Defense, Space & Security will retain its current operating units -- Boeing Military Aircraft (BMA), Network and Space Systems (N&SS), and Global Services & Support (GS&S) -- the realignment consolidates some divisions and makes a number of leadership changes. Chief among the moves is consolidation of two divisions in N&SS: The Combat Systems division and the Command, Control & Communications (C3) Networks division will be unified as the new Network and Tactical Systems division.
Muilenburg also announced several key leadership assignments at the Boeing Defense, Space & Security level and throughout the business units that will help the company improve productivity, manage its cost structure and deliver on customer commitments:
A number of structural changes complement these leadership moves:
A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $32 billion business with 70,000 employees worldwide.
# # #
Contact:
Daniel Beck
External Communications
Office: 703-414-6447
Mobile: 562-243-7082
[email protected]
Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman reflects on the past decade and wonders about the direction being taken by the new one, taking on Boeing and government corruption and more. Here is a short excerpt. You may find the complete post at The Last Inspector, http://eastmans.site.aplus.net/pblog/index.php
“Boeing chose to jump on the Bush anti-regulation and ignore enforcing regulations bandwagon. And, Boeing got busy early in the decade with revolving door fraud, as in the case of hiring Druyun Quid Pro Quo for fixing the first tanker contract award in Boeing’s favor. Such revolving door shenanigans continue as employees eagerly jump from government to Boeing and back to government again, each time performing more service to Boeing such as favors in the form of information, contacts and influence, “adjusting” federal regulations to better the advantage of the company or make such regulations less in the way of opportunities for more questionable business dealings. Combined with Boeing lobbyists and campaign contributions it is a powerful cabal that works 365 days a year to gain taxpayers dollars.”
More information about how Boeing treats their employees. -GFS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Threat Level Privacy, Crime and Security Online
Link: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/boeing-employee/
Boeing has fired an employee for speaking to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer after the newspaper published a story in July saying that Boeing couldn’t properly protect data in its computer systems from theft, manipulation and fraud. The story also suggested that the company may have misrepresented the security of its data in filings to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The fired employee says he was trying to save the company but was treated badly after he raised ethical concerns internally about how the company was conducting security audits of its systems. He then spoke with a reporter as well as the SEC about his concerns. Now he says the company is retaliating against him, instead of trying to fix its problems. An anonymous e-mail sent to the Seattle P-I also disclosed that Boeing is spying on other employees to ferret out whistleblowers by videotaping workers and reading their e-mail.
The Seattle P-I’s
July story about Boeing’s alleged security problems revealed that the company had failed repeatedly to comply with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act — a law that requires companies to prove that they have internal control of their data to prevent anyone from manipulating financial numbers and deceiving stockholders. The law requires companies to, among many other things, implement controls that restrict access to data and computer systems to only those people who need it, and that access and changes to systems — including code changes — are well documented.
Companies have complained that the SOX Act is poorly written and places vague and expensive burdens on them to implement — especially for companies the size of Boeing. Documents that the Seattle P-I obtained discussing internal and external audits of Boeing show that the company struggled to meet the law’s requirements but could never quite get it together, and that the IT division had failed year after year to demonstrate that it had “a robust control environment.”
Among the problems the Seattle paper found were:
Boeing’s internal audit findings were so poor — meaning that so many computer system controls were failing or evidence was missing — that external auditor Deloitte & Touche decided not to rely on the results for three consecutive years.
Boeing exposed sensitive information about computer systems’ holes to employees who did not need access to all of the data, according to e-mails and interviews.
An internal complaint was filed with the company’s ethics board that audit results had been manipulated. The company decided last September that the allegation was unsubstantiated.
Some employees involved in the compliance process perceived a threatening culture. A late 2006 internal report said that employees felt they were being told that their jobs and salaries were “on the line,” and they were being pressured to produce evidence for audits “ahead of events occurring normally.”
In July this year, another Boeing whistleblower was charged with 16 counts of computer tresspass for allegedly stealing 320,000 company files and giving some of them to the Seattle Times to document flaws in the company’s inspection process for one of its new planes. Police say they discovered password-cracking tools on the employee’s computer. The company estimated that the stolen data could have cost the company between $5 billion and $15 billion if the information got into the wrong hands — presumably meaning the hands of competitors.
Boeing also recently suffered three separate cases of data theft in which the personal information of more than 400,000 employees was stolen by thieves who made off with company laptops containing unencrypted data.
Posted at 12:15 PM in Boeing Whistleblower | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
742 F.2d 1225
117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2468, 101 Lab.Cas. P 11,188
Raymond P. SCOGGINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The BOEING COMPANY, INC., a Delaware corporation; and
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, Aerospace Industrial District Lodge # 751, AFL-CIO,
a labor organization, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 83-3778.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 7, 1984.
Decided Sept. 18, 1984.
1
Carleton H.A. Taber, Lewis Lynn Ellsworth, Salter, McKeehen, Gudger & Rabine, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellant.
2
Hugh Hafer, Hafer, Cassidy & Price, John F. Aslin, Perkins, Cole, Stone, Olsen & Williams, Seattle, Wash., for defendants-appellees.
3
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington.
4
Before KILKENNY and NELSON, Circuit Judges, and EAST,* District Judge.
EAST, District Judge:
5
Raymond Scoggins brought this action against his former employer, The Boeing Company, Inc. (Boeing), under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185, for breach of the collective bargaining agreement and against his union, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Aerospace Industrial District Lodge # 751 (the union), for violating its duty of fair representation. The District Court granted summary judgment for Boeing, ruling that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations. The District Court also granted summary judgment for the union based upon Scoggins' failure to exhaust internal union remedies. We affirm.
I. FACTS
6
Scoggins was terminated by Boeing on June 25, 1980. As a Boeing employee, Scoggins was represented by the union. Following his termination, Scoggins met with a union business agent, seeking the union's help in his efforts to get his job back. The agent subsequently interviewed witnesses, reviewed Boeing's files, and met with Boeing representatives to discuss Scoggins' termination.
7
On August 27, 1980, the business agent notified Scoggins by letter that further efforts on Scoggins' behalf would be futile. Scoggins complained to the business agent about the agent's decision not to pursue the grievance further. However, Scoggins made no effort to contact the local union's president or to file an internal union appeal of the agent's decision. On September 16, 1980, the union withdrew Scoggins' grievance.
8
Scoggins brought this action on December 28, 1981, sixteen months after he received notice of the union's decision not to pursue his grievance. In his complaint, Scoggins alleged that Boeing breached the collective bargaining agreement by terminating him without just cause. He further alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to process his grievance through arbitration. Scoggins moved for summary judgment against Boeing and the union, and also moved to strike the defendants' affirmative defenses of statute of limitations and failure to exhaust internal union remedies. In response, the union moved for summary judgment.
9
The District Court granted the union's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action as to both the union and Boeing.1 The court concluded that Scoggins failed to exhaust explicit and mandatory union remedies. The court also concluded that either the six month statute of limitations established by 29 U.S.C. Sec. 160(b) or the three month limitation of Wash.Rev.Code Sec. 7.04.180 (1974) applied to Scoggins' action, and that Scoggins' action was therefore time barred.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Statute of Limitations
10
Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 101 S.Ct. 1559, 67 L.Ed.2d 732 (1981), the statute of limitations for hybrid Section 301 actions in Washington was three years. Christianson v. Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co., 681 F.2d 577 (9th Cir.1982) (three year statute of limitations for suits against employers); Washington v. Northland Marine Co., 681 F.2d 582 (9th Cir.1982) (three year statute of limitations for suits against unions). In Mitchell, the Supreme Court held that a state limitation period for vacation of an arbitral award controlled the employee's Section 301 action against his employer Mitchell, 451 U.S. at 64, 101 S.Ct. at 1564. In Washington, this period is three months. See Wash.Rev.Code Sec. 7.04.180 (1974). The Mitchell opinion, however, invited a square presentation of the question whether a more appropriate period would be the six-month limitation period found in Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 451 U.S. at 60 n. 2, 101 S.Ct. at 1562 n. 2. In DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983), the Court decided this question. The Court held that the limitation period as to claims against both an employer and a union is six months. We must decide whether either of these decisions applies to Scoggins' action, filed eight months after Mitchell and sixteen months before DelCostello.
11
We have held that DelCostello does not apply retroactively either to claims against unions for breach of the duty of fair representation, see Barina v. Gulf Trading and Transportation Co., 726 F.2d 560, 562-63 (9th Cir.1984); McNaughton v. Dillingham Corp., 722 F.2d 1459 (9th Cir.1984), petition for cert. filed, 52 U.S.L.W. 3829 (U.S. May 15, 1984) (No. 83-1739); Edwards v. Teamsters Local 36, 719 F.2d 1036, 1040-41 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1599, 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984), or to claims against employers under the Labor Management Relations Act. See Barina v. Gulf Trading and Transportation Co., 726 F.2d at 563-64. The six-month limitations period announced in DelCostello cannot, therefore, govern Scoggins' action.2
12
Scoggins, however, did not file his action until eight months after the Supreme Court decided Mitchell. Scoggins argues that based on the Supreme Court's decision in Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), and this court's decisions in Barina and Singer v. Flying Tiger Line Inc., 652 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir.1981), Mitchell should not be applied to bar Scoggins' action against Boeing.3 In Chevron Oil, the Supreme Court declined to apply a shorter statute of limitations retroactively to extinguish a claim, stating that "[i]t would ... produce the most 'substantial inequitable results,' ... to hold that the respondent 'slept on his rights' at a time when he could not have known the time limitation that the law imposed upon him." Chevron Oil, 404 U.S. at 108, 92 S.Ct. at 356. Based on factors set forth in Chevron Oil,4 we refused to apply Mitchell retroactively to a case filed three years prior to the Mitchell decision. Singer v. Flying Tiger Line Inc., 652 F.2d at 1353. At the time the plaintiff in Singer filed his action, the statute of limitations, according to an earlier decision by this court,5 appeared to be three years. It was not until three years after the plaintiff filed his action that the Supreme Court announced that the statute of limitations was actually a shorter period. In Barina, we also held that Mitchell would not be retroactively applied to bar the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff had filed his suit within two months of the Supreme Court's Mitchell decision and approximately one year after the cause of action accrued. Under the law prevailing prior to Mitchell, the plaintiff's suit would have been timely filed, but under Mitchell, the statute of limitations would have been 100 days. It would have produced "substantial inequitable results" to hold that the plaintiff in Barina had "slept on his rights" by not filing within 100 days of the time the cause arose; at that point in time, the statute of limitations was thought to be three years. The plaintiff, however, quickly filed suit after Mitchell announced the shorter statute of limitations.
13
The above cases do not help Scoggins. Although Scoggins was not aware of the shorter statute of limitations period when his cause of action accrued in August, 1980, Scoggins slept on his rights after the Mitchell decision. Unlike the plaintiff in Singer, who did not know the "correct" statute of limitations until several years after he filed his lawsuit, Scoggins knew the correct statute of limitations eight months before he filed his suit. Unlike the plaintiff in Barina, who quickly filed his lawsuit after the Court announced in Mitchell the shorter statute of limitations, Scoggins delayed filing his lawsuit until eight months after the Mitchell decision. It is not inequitable to hold Scoggins to the shorter statute of limitations period applicable under Mitchell. Consequently, Scoggins' action against Boeing is governed by a three month statute of limitations (see Wash.Rev.Code Sec. 7.04.180 (1974)) appropriate under Mitchell. Since Scoggins did not file his case until eight months after the Supreme Court announced the Mitchell decision, the District Court properly dismissed Scoggins' action against Boeing as time barred.
14
Mitchell, however, applies only to suits against employers; it does not apply to suits against unions. See n. 3, supra. Since neither Mitchell nor DelCostello governs the statute of limitations for Scoggins' action against the union, the appropriate statute of limitations for this suit is three years. See Washington v. Northland Marine Co., 681 F.2d 582, 586 (9th Cir.1982). Scoggins filed suit sixteen months after his cause of action accrued. The suit was therefore timely filed and the District Court erred in dismissing the suit against the union as time barred.
B. Exhaustion of Internal Union Remedies
15
The District Court also determined that Scoggins' suit against the union should be dismissed because Scoggins failed to exhaust internal union appeals procedures. The determination whether to require exhaustion is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Fristoe v. Reynolds Metal Co., 615 F.2d 1209, 1214 (9th Cir.1980). Scoggins argues that the District Court abused its discretion in making this determination.
16
The Supreme Court has identified three factors to guide trial courts in determining whether to require an employee to exhaust such appeals procedures: (1) whether union officials are so hostile to the employee that the employee could not obtain a fair hearing; (2) whether the internal union appeals procedures would be inadequate either to reactivate the employee's grievance or to accord the employee the full relief sought under Section 301; and (3) whether exhaustion would unreasonably delay the employee's opportunity to obtain a judicial hearing on the merits. Clayton v. Automobile Workers, 451 U.S. 679, 689, 101 S.Ct. 2088, 2095, 68 L.Ed.2d 538 (1981). On appeal, Scoggins relies primarily on the second factor in arguing that the District Court improperly required exhaustion.6
17
Although Scoggins argues on appeal that the union could neither award him the complete relief he sought nor reactivate his grievance, a careful search of the record reveals that Scoggins failed to make the reactivation argument to the District Court. When the union moved for summary judgment, the union submitted an affidavit and excerpts from the union constitution.7 The union used these documents to demonstrate to the District Court that internal union remedies were available to Scoggins. Scoggins, in his response to the union's motion for summary judgment, argued only that "[b]ecause, in this case, the internal union appeals procedures cannot grant the Plaintiff the complete relief sought in his Sec. 301 suit i.e., reinstatement, Clayton mandates that as a matter of law, the Union's motion [for summary judgment] be denied." Scoggins completely failed to argue to the District Court that the union could not reactivate the grievance. By emphasizing only half of Clayton's second factor and ignoring the other half, Scoggins failed to give the District Court a chance to determine whether there was a genuine issue of material fact for trial; i.e., whether the union could have reactivated the grievance. Scoggins may not make this argument for the first time on appeal.
18
In this circuit, when a party moves for summary judgment in a Section 301 action citing failure to exhaust internal union remedies, the moving party must first establish the availability of adequate internal union remedies; the burden then shifts to the party opposing the motion to respond by affidavits or otherwise and set forth specific facts showing that exhaustion of remedies would have been futile. See Keppard v. International Harvester Co., 581 F.2d 764 (9th Cir.1978). Scoggins failed to present any facts or arguments to the District Court to indicate that the union could not reactivate the grievance. Since Clayton requires only that the union be able to award the complete relief sought or reactivate the grievance, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in requiring exhaustion where Scoggins failed to suggest the union could not reactivate the grievance. See Hayes v. Brotherhood of Railway and Airline Clerks/Allied Services Division, 727 F.2d 1383, 1386 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, 734 F.2d 219 (5th Cir.1984).
CONCLUSION
19
The District Court did not err in dismissing Scoggins' suit against Boeing and the union. The District Court properly dismissed Scoggins' action against Boeing because the statute of limitations had run. The court also properly dismissed the action against the union because Scoggins had failed to exhaust internal union appeals procedures.
20
AFFIRMED.
Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation
Scoggins argues that the District Court could not grant summary judgment for Boeing since Boeing never moved for it. However, where one party moves for summary judgment, the trial court may sua sponte grant summary judgment to the non-moving party. Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Connett, 685 F.2d 309, 311 (9th Cir.1982). Of course, "the moving party against whom summary judgment was rendered [must have] had a full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issues involved in the motion." Id. at 312. In this case, the statute of limitations question was thoroughly discussed upon Scoggins' motion
We recognize, as we did in Barina, 726 F.2d at 563 n. 5, that other circuits have reached contrary conclusions and applied DelCostello retroactively. Edwards v. Teamsters Local Union No. 36, McNaughton, and Barina, however, establish the law of this circuit and bind us. We also happen to agree
Mitchell applies only to suits against employers; it does not apply to suits against unions. Barina, 726 F.2d at 562; Edwards, 719 F.2d at 1039; McNaughton v. Dillingham Corp., 707 F.2d 1042, 1047-48 (9th Cir.1983), reh'g denied, 722 F.2d 1459 (9th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, 52 U.S.L.W. 3829 (U.S. May 15, 1984) (No. 83-1739). Consequently, the statute of limitations applicable under Mitchell governs only Scoggins' action against Boeing; it does not govern his action against the union
Scoggins also argues that Mitchell applies only where a final arbitration decision was rendered; Scoggins' grievance was withdrawn prior to arbitration and, consequently, Scoggins asserts Mitchell should not be applied even to his action against Boeing. This court, however, has previously rejected this argument. McNaughton, 707 F.2d at 1046. Mitchell applies whether a grievance is withdrawn or goes to arbitration. Id.
In Chevron Oil, the Supreme Court listed three factors to be considered by courts when reviewing the issue of retroactivity: (1) whether the decision established a new principle of law; (2) whether retroactive application will retard or further the purposes of the rule in question; and (3) whether applying the new decision will produce substantial inequitable results. Chevron Oil, 404 U.S. at 106-07, 92 S.Ct. at 355
In Price v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 586 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir.1978), this court held that the statute of limitations for a suit against a union in California was three years
Scoggins also argues that the first factor--whether union officials are hostile to the employee--supports his position that exhaustion should not be required. Scoggins asserts that hostility should be inferred from a statement made by the union business representative who handled Scoggins' grievance; the representative told Scoggins that further pursuit of the grievance would be futile. Scoggins argues that this feeling of futility indicates hostility on the part of the entire union. However, "[f]or there to be an adequate demonstration of hostility, it must appear that persons involved in the intraunion appeals procedure are hostile toward the union member...." Hayes v. Brotherhood of Ry. & Airline Clerks/Allied Serv. Div., 734 F.2d 219, 220 (5th Cir.1984). See also Varra v. Dillon Companies, Inc., 615 F.2d 1315, 1317 (10th Cir.1980). Scoggins failed to present any evidence to the District Court, and fails to present any evidence now, of any indication of hostility on the part of anyone in the union who would have acted on Scoggins' appeal
On appeal, Scoggins argues that these documents should not have been considered by the District Court. He objects that they are improperly authenticated and contain hearsay statements. Scoggins, however, failed to object to the evidence in District Court. Consequently, Scoggins waived any objections to the evidence and the District Court properly considered it. United States v. Dibble, 429 F.2d 598, 603 (9th Cir.1970) (Wright, J., concurring); Davis v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 708 F.2d 862, 864 (1st Cir.1983)
OpenJurist.org - Disclaimer
Posted at 12:03 PM in Boeing Whistleblower | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Court Dismisses All Charges Against Boeing Whistleblower, Gerald Eastman
King County Court dismissed all charges against Boeing whistleblower,
Gerald Eastman last week. That was the good news. Boeing defied the
court ordered end of the deferred prosecution agreement, and continued
to demand another interview after the drop-dead date of Mr. Eastman's
agreement he signed after the mistrial. Boeing demanded this interview
be held about a week after the ending date of the agreement, and also
ignored the court ordered return of copies Boeing had made of Mr.
Eastman's personal hard drives. For more information about all of
this, visit Mr. Eastman's site: http://www.thelastinspector. com
GFS
__._,_.___
Posted at 10:43 PM in Boeing Whistleblower | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)