The Boeing saga continues. Amid whistleblowers
coming forward and testifying in Senate hearings, the Society of Professional Engineering
Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA) has alleged that Boeing had retaliated against two
engineers who insisted on reevaluating previous engineering work on the
Boeing 777 and 787 programs. SPEEA is a union that represents employees
at both Boeing and Spirit AeroSystems. In today’s video, we’ll go in-depth with the
allegations put forward by SPEEA against Boeing. SPEEA states that it had filed
a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on April 18th, 2024. In the complaint, the union asked the board to
get access to a report filed by Boeing with the FAA about an incident. SPEEA added that the
move was necessary for it to successfully appeal actions taken against one of the
workers who still is at Boeing. Meanwhile, the other has already left
the aircraft manufacturer. Explaining the case in further detail,
the union stated that it involved the Organization Delegation Authorization
(ODA) process, where the FAA delegates some oversight authority to aircraft
manufacturers, including Boeing. SPEEA noted that the FAA had completed a report
on the ODA process, which concluded that, “[…] Boeing workers are reluctant to speak out
about potential safety and quality problems, for fear of retaliation. The panel
also found that Boeing workers are hesitant to use the company’s “Speak
Up” process for a number of reasons, including the belief that their
complaints wouldn’t be acted upon.” The two ODA engineers were said to be at odds
with managers in 2022 when they requested to use a different set of assumptions in
analyzing the onboard computer networks on the Boeing 777 and 787 programs. They
reasoned this would be needed to comply with FAA’s newly issued guidance. However, the
union alleged that Boeing’s managers objected, “[…] saying that going back to run calculations using the new assumptions would cost
money and cause production delays.” Still, SPEEA said that the engineers insisted and, with the backing of the FAA, prevailed, and
Boeing had to redo the required analysis. Rich Plunkett, SPEEA's Director of Strategic
Development, noted that this was how Congress intended the ODA process to work, where Boeing
employees, experts in their respective fields, review their colleagues' work and look
for potential errors to correct them. SPEEA stated that after the employees had raised
the issue with the onboard computer networks of the two widebody aircraft, both received
identical negative evaluations at their next performance reviews. The union’s representative
highlighted that these are critical since they determine raises and promotion opportunities and
potentially put employees at risk of layoffs. The two engineers appealed the evaluations
with SPEEA and the union said that its staff met with Boeing’s representatives to
figure out the case. This included a manager admitting that he had rated the
pair poorly quote “at the request of the 777 and 787 managers who had been forced
to resubmit their work.” Despite this, the manufacturer refused to change
its evaluation of the two employees. As a result of the dispute,
one engineer left the company, while the other used Boeing’s
‘Speak Up’ complaint filing system. Since the complaint alleged retaliation
and interference with ODA processes, the company was forced to file a report with
the FAA. Subsequently, the company’s officials called the engineer to a meeting, where
a SPEEA representative was also present. There, Boeing told the employee that his
complaint, quote “[…] did not meet the legal threshold of interference, nor
the legal definition of retaliation, and as a result, they were closing his case.” Still, the union said that it
has continued pursuing the case, adding that it had sought access to the report
given to the FAA. Boeing has refused to do so, even if US labor law gives unions access to
documents they need for an appeal case, with the complaint to the NLRB seeking to force the
manufacturer to overturn the requested documents. Plunkett stated that, “Whether it’s capital R ‘Retaliation’ or not,
the fact remains that the two ODA-designated SPEEA members did the right thing and stuck to
their guns despite heavy pressure from Boeing, and then got hit with career-damaging
performance reviews. This helps show why Boeing doesn’t have a healthy safety culture.” In a statement to Simple Flying on
the matter, a Boeing spokesperson reiterated that the manufacturer does not tolerate
retaliation, encouraging its employees to speak up whenever there is a problem at the workplace. The
manufacturer’s statement in full is as follows: “We have zero tolerance for retaliation and
encourage our employees to speak up when they see an issue. After an extensive review of
documentation and interviewing more than a dozen witnesses, our investigators
found no evidence of retaliation or interference. We have determined
the allegations are unsubstantiated.” The issue of company intimidation and retaliation had also been recently raised with
Boeing engineer Sam Salehpour telling a senate committee that he faced years of
harassment and exclusion for speaking out. Salehpour even alleges that he had a bolt
driven into the wheel of his car as a warning, concluding that, despite Boeing claiming
to champion a culture of speaking up, it has quote “become obvious that
speaking up at Boeing comes at a cost." While Salehpour still has his job, he has claimed that he continues to face
discriminatory behavior from colleagues. In recent times, the US Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations launched an investigation into Boeing and its safety culture. A letter signed by Richard Blumenthal, the chairman of the subcommittee, and
Ron Johnson, another committee member, alleged that manufacturing processes at the plane
maker were creating safety risks to the public. The two Senators said they received reports
from a whistleblower about problems with the Boeing 777 and Boeing 787 programs,
alleging that on several occasions, the individual had found problems
with both twin-aisle aircraft. It has been alleged that Boeing has
taken shortcuts to reduce bottlenecks in the production process, leading to
faulty evaluation of production data, resulting in potentially defective parts
being installed on in-service aircraft. Salehpour specifically alleged that one of the
shortcuts Boeing made during assembly was to cover up gaps in the fuselage by "force aligning"
them- applying excessive force. This ultimately led to levels of force orders of magnitude
higher than safe limits being applied to parts of the aircraft, 165 times to be precise.
After being repositioned from the 787 program to the 777, Salehpour stated that he saw
workers using quote "improper and untested methods" to align parts in the 777, including
cranes, other heavy equipment. In one case saw a worker quote "jumping on pieces
of the airplane to get them to align." Whistleblowers allege that
issues could result in quote “premature fatigue failure without
any warning, thus creating unsafe conditions for the aircraft with potentially
catastrophic accidents and passenger fatalities.” In a statement to Simple Flying on April 15th, Boeing said it has been cooperating
with the subcommittee’s inquiry, adding that any reports about structural
issues with the Boeing 787 were “inaccurate.” So what do you think of this latest case involving two engineers belonging to the “Society
of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace” union? Share your thoughts
with us by leaving a comment down below. simple flying publishes over 150
articles every week if you're looking for the latest Aviation news
and insights visit simple flying.com
