Does the closure of the lab in Bellevue and its relocation out of the US constitute a "Runaway Shop' ?

From the start we have been suspicious about the way Lionbridge and Microsoft decided to close the lab in Bellevue, lay off all its employees and relocate the work in labs out of the US (in Warsaw and Beijing). This decision came hardly two months after a collective bargaining agreement had been signed that included the union abandoning its charge against Microsoft for joint employment.

Due to our lack of experience in this matter and the destabilization caused by most of the union members having been laid off, it's only recently that we learned about the Runaway Shop doctrine that we think could apply to our case. Considering Lionbridge gave very little information about the economic reasons for the relocation of the lab and considering how the agreement was negotiated a few days after Microsoft lost an appeal with the NLRB national panel about the joint employment charge we are suspicious about anti-union and unfair labor practices. We have therefore decided to file charges with the NLRB so that this situation can be more thoroughly investigated and clarified. The charges were filed today against Lionbridge and against Microsoft at the NLRB's office in Seattle.





A few references about the Runaway Shop doctrine.
2013 About the Darlington case
in 2011
2000 Hofstra Labor and Law Employment Journal
1993 Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
1963 Cleveland State Law Review