Beckett Aviation Corporation-Cleveland

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 88 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Beckett Aviation Corporation-Cleveland and Cleve-
land Professional Pilots Association, Petitioner.
Case 8-RC-1217
January 13, 1981
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Marco E.
Graves. Following the hearing and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended, by direction of
the Regional Director for Region 8, this case was
transferred to the Board for decision. Briefs were
filed by both parties.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
ruling made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer, Beckett Aviation Corporation-
Cleveland, is an Ohio corporation with its principal
place of business in Cleveland, Ohio, where it is
engaged in the service and operation of private air-
craft. The Employer is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Aviation Enterprises, Inc., which is itself a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Chessie System.
Aviation Enterprises also owns four other separate-
ly incorporated Beckett Aviation corporations lo-
cated in Youngstown, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania, Chicago, Illinois, and West Palm Beach,
Florida.
The parties stipulated that in each State where
Aviation Enterprises has operations it annually re-
ceives shipments of fuel, parts, aircraft, and sup-
plies directly from outside the State of location in
excess of $50,000 and that annually, in the course
and conduct of its business, each corporation re-
ceives gross revenues from its operations in excess
of $500,000.
Because the Employer is involved in the air
transportation business, we have in this case, as in
other similar cases,' requested the National Media-
tion Board, as the agency primarily vested with ju-
I See, e.g., Executive l&ght Services, Incorporated, d/b/a Air Oregon,
Inc.., 235 NLRB 1142 (1978).
254 NLEB No. 13
risdiction under the Railway Labor Act over air
carriers and having primary authority to determine
its own jurisdiction, to study the record in the case
and to determine the applicability of the Railway
Labor Act to the Employer. We have been admin-
istratively advised by the National Mediation
Board under date of October 14, 1980, that
Beckett's contacts with common carrier by air,
and its own carriage activities, bear only a
remote and insignificant relationship to
common carriage by air. Based upon the
record in this File, the Board is of the opinion
that the activities and employees performing
such activities are not subject to the Railway
Labor Act.
Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act toassert jurisdic-
tion herein.
2. The parties stipulated that the Petitioner is a
labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act seeking to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit com-
posed of:
All pilots employed by Beckett Aviation Cor-
poration-Cleveland excluding all office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act, and all other employees.
The Employer contends that the only appropriate
unit is a unit which includes all pilots from the five
separate Beckett Aviation Corporations.
The five Beckett Aviation Corporations (herein-
after collectively referred to as Beckett) are highly
integrated and administratively centralized. Beckett
is headed by John Lyden, the company president,
who is responsible for overseeing operations at all
five divisions. The system chief pilot, Donald
Minner, is in charge of overall policy regarding
pilots throughout the company. In addition, there
are division chief pilots at each location who di-
rectly supervise pilots at those respective locations.
It should also be noted that Beckett's customers
may not arrange for service directly at the separate
locations, but must contact the central office in
Youngstown.
Personnel policies for pilots in the five Beckett
locations are established centrally. Pilots' duties, re-
sponsibilities, and safety requirements, as well as
88
BECKETT AVIATION CORP.
other significant rules and regulations, are set forth
in the "Beckett Aviation Corporation Flight Oper-
ations Manual," a document which is distributed to
pilots at all locations.2 The hiring process is han-
dled by a central committee of company officers.
Discharges may be recommended by the division
chief pilot at each location, but must be approved
by President Lyden. Moreover, wages and benefits
are applied uniformly among the various divisions.
In addition, pilot transfers among the five locations
are based on a systemwide seniority list and a bid-
ding procedure.
The Employer argues that Beckett's functional
integration and centrally administered labor rela-
tions policies are factors sufficient to rebut the
Board's longstanding presumption that a single-lo-
cation unit is appropriate. We have frequently
noted that the party seeking to overcome the pre-
sumptive appropriateness of a single-location unit
must be able to show that the day-to-day interests
of the employees at the sought location have
merged with those of employees at the other loca-
tions.3 We do not believe that the Employer herein
has made such a showing.
As previously indicated, responsibility for the
day-to-day supervision of the pilots at each loca-
tion is with the division chief pilot. The division
chief pilot schedules the working hours of each
pilot. Significantly, the division chief pilot has wide
latitude to resolve grievances and he may personal-
ly impose minor disciplinary measures on pilots and
may recommend more severe strictures to Lyden.
It should also be noted that although the seniority
list for transfers among pilots is systemwide, vaca-
tion schedules are determined according to senior-
ity at each location.
Thus, pilots at the Cleveland location perform
their day-to-day work under the immediate super-
vision of a division chief pilot who is personally in-
volved with the daily matters which make up their
grievances and routine problems. The Board has
found this to be a crucial factor in determining
whether employees at different locations share a
community of interest. See Renzetti's Market, supra,
Wyandotte Saving Bank, 245 NLRB 943 (1979),
Haag Drug Company, Incorporated, supra.
In addition, there is a low level of interchange
among the pilots at the different locations. Lyden
and Minner testified that pilots from one location
2 Pilots' duties are uniform throughout the company, with the excep-
tion of the Tilford Division in West Palm Beach, Florida. At that loca-
tion, pilots do not operate corporate airplanes, but are involved in flying
charters and teaching in a flight school.
I See, e.g., Renzetti's Market Inc., 238 NLRB 174 (1978), Purity Su-
preme. Inc., 197 NLRB 915, 917 (1972), Haag Drug Company, Incorporat-
ed, 169 NLRB 877 (1968),
are assigned to another location on an average of
five to eight times per month. However, this statis-
tic is undermined by the fact that most of these as-
signments result from a need to assign planes rather
than pilots. Thus, flight crews are generally as-
signed as a complete unit with all crew members
from one location and there are very few crews
which include pilots from different locations
(which are referred to as "mixed" crews). Line
pilot Sexton testified that he has not been a
member of a crew for at least 2 years; line pilot
Schmid has never been temporarily assigned during
his 10 years with the Employer, and line pilot
Newell has been in mixed crews only two or three
times in 5-1/2 years. There is no forum for person-
al contact or other forms of communication among
pilots based in different locations. The Employer
does not hold systemwide meetings for pilots, and
there is no companywide newspaper. We find that
the slight evidence of employee interchange does
not undermine the separate community of interest
of pilots at the Cleveland location.
In view of the autonomous supervision of pilots
at each location, the wide geographical separation
between the five locations, the absence of any bar-
gaining history among the employees, the lack of
significant employee interchange, and the fact that
no labor organization seeks to represent the em-
ployees on a broader basis, we find that there is a
sufficient basis for granting the Petitioner's request
for a single-location unit.
There remains for consideration by the Board
the question of whether the division chief pilot of
Beckett Aviation Corporation-Cleveland is a su-
pervisor as defined in Section 2(11) of the Act. As
previously noted, the division chief pilot has au-
thority to resolve grievances, impose discipline,
and recommend hiring and termination of pilots. In
addition, the Cleveland division chief pilot is a
member of the systemwide hiring committee for
pilot promotions at his location. These activities
clearly serve to include the division chief pilot
within the 2(11) definition of supervisor. Accord-
ingly, we shall exclude the division chief pilots
from the bargaining unit. We find that the follow-
ing unit is appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act:
All pilots employed by Beckett Aviation Cor-
poration-Cleveland excluding all office clerical
employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act, and all other employees.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
89