Bell & Howell Airline Service Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 67 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

BELL & HOWELL AIRLINE SERVICE CO
Bell & Howell Airline Service Company and Charles
L. Snyder , Petitioner and International Alliance
of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture
Machine Operators of the United States and Cana-
da, AFL-CIO, and Local 409 of the International
Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees. Case
20-RD-629
August 24, 1970
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
MCCULLOCH AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Joseph R.
Wirts. On March 25, 1970, the Regional Director
for Region 20 issued an order transferring this case
to the National Labor Relations Board. Thereafter,
the Employer and the Union' filed briefs.'
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer with-
in the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged, insofar as here relevant,
in the servicing of motion picture projection equipment
and film for in-flight showings on commercial aircraft.
Film servicing is done at various locations including
New York City and San Francisco on a full-time
basis by employees classified as technicians, and on
a part-time basis at Washington, D.C., Boston, and
other locations by employees classified as on-call tech-
nicians. On May 1, 1967, the Employer and Union
entered into a contract' in which the Union was
' The name of the International Union appears as amended at the
hearing It is referred to as the "Union" in this decision
A brief was also filed by the Association of Field Service Technicians
The contract ran to December 31, 1969 , and was automatically
67
recognized as the bargaining representative of all
employees, there referred to as technicians, engaged
in the care, installation of, replacement, and mainte-
nance of motion picture projection equipment and
the care, mounting, and rewinding of film.' Geograph-
ically, the agreement covers all airports and other
locations in the United States and Canada where
the Employer "services motion picture projection
equipment and films...."
In his petition, the Petitioner contends that a sub-
stantial number of technicians no longer wish union
representation and seeks an election in a unit of
"all employees covered by the present collective-bar-
gaining agreement " between the Union and the
Employer. However, the Employer contends that only
separate units at each of its film servicing locations
where it employs full-time employees should be held
appropriate. The Employer and the Petitioner both
contend, contrary to the Union, that on-call techni-
cians, all of whom work at locations where there
are no full-time employees, should not be included
in any unit or units found appropriate.
With respect to the scope of the unit, the contract
specifically covers in one bargaining unit all of the
Employer's film servicing locations. As for the on-
call technicians, they perform the same work as the
full-time technicians and, thus, come within the gener-
al contractual language covering all employees
engaged in film servicing work. Furthermore, the
contract specifically provides for the employment of
on-call technicians and for their remuneration on
a flight-serviced basis. Thus, it is clear that the estab-
lished contractual unit is multilocation' in scope and
includes the on-call technicians' as well as full-time
renewable thereafter on a year-to-year basis absent notice to modify
or terminate insofar as the record shows, no such notice has ever
been given No party contends the contract is a bar
' Initial installation of equipment and basic equipment maintenance
are done at Tulsa, Oklahoma , Seattle , Washington , and Miami, Florida,
the home bases of customer airlines, by employees classified as technical
representatives The contract does not cover the technical representatives
and no party seeks their inclusion in any unit.
' The Employer, though conceding the agreement by its terms was
companywide in application , argues that the Board can make no such
finding for unit purposes because the record fails to show affirmatively
that the contract was applied as written However, the Employer participat-
ed at the hearing but made no attempt to show that the contract coverage
was other than that specified in the agreement Such evidence as there
is on the point indicates that the contract was applied to all of the
Employer's film servicing operations In these circumstances,we rind the
Employer's contention to be without merit
We find no merit in the contention of the Association that the
on-call technicians are representatives of management , nor in the conten-
tion of the Employer and the Association that the on-call technicians
are independent contractors , for the evidence does not support such
contentions To be sure , they work without immediate supervision, but
this factor alone is not conclusive especially where, as here, their income
from the job is set by the collective -bargaining agreement , their periods
of work are determined by flight schedules, and in other regards they
exercise no real control over the job Neither do we find any merit
in the Petitioner 's and Employer's contention that the on -call technicians
185 NLRB No.18
68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
technicians.'
As the recognized contractual unit is, under settled
Board policy, the appropriate unit in a "decertifica-
tion" proceeding' we find that the following employees
of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
are casual employees It is true that some of them may service no
more than one flight a day, perhaps on the average less, nevertheless,
all are trained by the Employer, work on the average some 10 to
15 hours a week, and regularly perform the work, week in and week
out in these circumstances, we find the on-call technicians are regular
part-time employees
The contract also covers technicians-in-charge, who, the parties stipu-
lated, are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act We shall
include them in the unit
'See Gill Glass & Fixture Company, 116 NLRB 1540
The Employer has a film servicing operation at Toronto, Canada,
employing one on-call technician who works exclusively in Canada He
is, in view of its broad language, covered by the contract Nevertheless,
All technicains, on-call technicians, and techni-
cians-in-charge at all the Employer's film servic-
ing locations in the United States excluding
employees who work exclusively in Canada,' all
other employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election10 omitted from publication.]
we shall exclude him from the unit for, in such circumstances, the
appropriate unit is , for purposes of this Act, the existing unit excluding
persons working exclusively in foreign territory See Detroit & Canada
Tunnel Corporation, 83 NLRB 727 That case was overruled to the
extent inconsistent with West India Fruit and Steamship Company, Inc,
130 NLRB 343, 353, however, on the issue here involved there is
no inconsistency as West India involved no employees working exclusively
in a foreign nation Rather, the inconsistency between those cases was
in the area of the effect to be given to nationality of the employee
and his employing corporation in determining the coverage of the Act
That problem is not presented here
11 As the International is alone the recognized bargaining representative
of the established contractual bargaining unit, we shall provide that
its name alone appear on the ballot