DHL Corporation

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1982

260 N.L.R.B. 17 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

DHL CORPORATION
DHL Corporation and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, State of Alaska, General
Teamsters Local 959,' Petitioner. Case 19-RC-
10229
February 8, 1982
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND HUNTER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Norm
Hayashi. Following the hearing, and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the case was transferred to the National Labor Re-
lations Board for decision.
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
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board
finds:
The Employer is a California corporation en-
gaged in the transportation by air of mail and of
other various time-sensitive commodities such as
documents, small parcels, newspapers, electronic
parts, and perishable food stuffs, plants, fruits, and
vegetables. This transportation is provided both in
the State of California and in other States either
through the use of the services of another commer-
cial air carrier or through the use of aircrafts
owned by the Employer's two wholly owned sub-
sidiaries, DHL Airways, Inc., t/a DHL Airways
The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing
and Air Polynesia, Inc., t/a DHL Cargo. The par-
ties stipulated that, during the 12 months preceding
the filing of the instant petition, the Employer pur-
chased and received goods valued in excess of
$50,000 directly from suppliers located outside the
State of California.
The Employer contends that the petition should
be dismissed because jurisdiction is properly with
the National Mediation Board under the Railway
Labor Act and that the National Labor Relations
Board therefore should not exercise jurisdiction.
The Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that
jurisdiction is properly with the National Labor
Relations Board.
Section 2(2) of the Act provides in pertinent part
that the term "employer" as used in the National
Labor Relations Act should not include any person
subject to the Railway Labor Act.
Accordingly, because of the nature of the juris-
dictional question presented here, we requested the
National Mediation Board to study the record in
this case and to determine the applicability of the
Railway Labor Act to the Employer. In reply, we
were advised by the National Mediation Board
that, following its reading of the record, the board
had concluded that:
Based upon the nature of the work performed
by DHL Corporation and the degree of the in-
tegration of its operation with those of DHL
Air Cargo and DHL Airlines, the [National
Mediation] Board is of the opinion that DHL
is a carrier within the scope of Title II of the
Railway Labor Act. 2
In view of the foregoing, we shall dismiss the in-
stant petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition in Case 19-
RC-10229 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
I DIlL Cormpration, 9 NMB No 22 (1951)
260 NLRB No. 12
17