In evidence provided shortly before his death, a former Boeing employee who was discovered dead in March accused the firm of “countless” violations of US law. According to John Barnett, the company attempted to “eliminate” quality checks at a site that produces 787 aircraft.

The aircraft company was the target of a formal court deposition provided by the former quality control manager. According to officials, the 62-year-old died from a “self-inflicted gunshot wound” following two days of testifying.

Although it was “saddened” by Mr. Barnett’s passing, Boeing claims the problems he brought up had already been looked at and resolved.

The aerospace giant’s safety protocols are already being scrutinised, partly because of an event that occurred in January in which an abandoned door fell from a brand-new 737 Max shortly after take-off. 

Now that Barnett’s solicitors have made the transcript of his deposition public. The long paper has almost 140 pages in it.

Prior to retiring from Boeing in 2017 due to health concerns, Barnett had over 30 years of experience with the company. After voicing many severe safety concerns, he launched a lawsuit against the corporation, alleging he was the victim of management retribution. The company disputes this allegation.

Barnett’s deposition mostly centres on the years 2010 and later, following his relocation from Boeing’s Everett, Washington location to a then-new factory in North Charleston.

The facility was established to aid in the assembly of the 787 Dreamliner, a cutting-edge aircraft mostly utilised for lengthy flights.

Barnett had previously disclosed to the BBC and other media outlets that the management there had a habit of flouting established processes in an effort to accelerate the production of planes.

He went into further detail about these claims in his deposition, which supported his lawsuit alleging that senior managers had “denigrated, humiliated, and treated with scorn,” engaged in a campaign of gaslighting him, and as a result had created a “hostile work environment.”

His evidence included a significant section on the purported fabrication of documents about issues with the production process, including the tracking of subpar or damaged items.

He asserted that in order to save time, staff members had been under pressure to go outside established protocols outlined in Boeing’s own quality management system. He said that the phrase “We don’t have time to follow processes, we’re building aeroplanes” was frequently heard at the workplace.

He said that as a result, “an awful lot” of defective components had been able to reach the assembly line, and some had even been lost. Among these were two sizable fuselage portions from an aeroplane that “weren’t anywhere to be found”.

In one particular case, he stated that a defective and tainted tube meant for an oxygen system had been taken out of a scrap bin and may have ended up on an operational aircraft.

Usually, rigorous sterilisation was required for these parts to lower the possibility of undesirable chemical reactions. He said that without it, there was a chance that an explosion would “bring the whole plane down” if the system was activated.

He acknowledged that there had been “countless” instances of papers being faked, and he agreed with his attorney’s assertion that every procedural infraction constituted a “criminal offence and felony”.

Barnett was also quite critical of what he perceived as an effort to expedite the manufacturing process at the South Carolina factory by reducing quality control inspections.

“So the push for probably the last 15 to 20 years at Boeing is to eliminate quality [inspections]”, he said. “But when here in Charleston they put that push on steroids”.

Boeing’s legal team seemed to be more interested in pursuing Mr. Barnett’s allegations of retaliation and to be casting doubt on his claim that his safety concerns were not given due consideration at the time.

In a statement given to the BBC, Boeing said: “We are saddened by Barnett’s passing and our thoughts continue to be with his family and friends.”

“Boeing reviewed and addressed quality issues that Mr Barnett raised before he retired in 2017, as well as other quality issues referred to in the complaint. Engineering analysis determined the issues he raised did not affect airplane safety”.

It also brought attention to an earlier ruling in Mr. Barnett’s case by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which determined in 2020 that the business had not violated whistleblower protection laws.

“We value employees who voice their opinions, and we have mechanisms in place to support them in doing so in a private or anonymous manner,” the statement said.

“To ensure the safety, quality and conformance of our products, we investigate all allegations of improper behaviour. We then work diligently to address them and make improvements.”

Barnett’s legal action is probably not going to end. As executors of his estate, his brother Rodney Barnett and mother Vicky Stokes will present it.

It is now anticipated that the matter will go to trial in September.

(Adapted from BBC.com)

Categories: HR & Organization, Regulations & Legal, Uncategorized